This blog is probably going to tick a lot of people off, but I feel I must.
I am no apologist.
NOT AN APOLOGIST.
I don't spend much time researching Christianity, finding historical and scientific proofs of it's truths, and those in the Bible. I have read some very insightful and interesting books and essays, for sure, on that very subject, but in general, I don't know much apologetic facts. I know it's there, I just . . . don't care, I guess.
I have a friend who is a genius, and I really mean that in every sense of the world. His IQ is 160, I believe (though I realize that all an IQ test measures is your ability to do IQ tests). He teaches physiology at a prominent university, and yes, he is a fundamentalist Christian. This man has BLOWN MY MIND from time to time with historical, astronomical, physiological, etc. reasons for his belief in Christ, the validity of the Bible, and all that awesome fundamentalist stuff. My own faith has been very enriched and founded by these intellectual whoppers, some of which I have filed away in my brain, ready to be drawn out and fired like an intellectual, anti-atheist Colt 45 revolver
. . . but I don't use them.
What I am personally interested in, instead, is the philosophical, logical, moral, and emotional basis for Christianity. And indeed, you can make some very compelling arguments for belief on Christ from those standpoints. After all, what is it to be human? An entirely scientific state? Hardly. It's our characteristics aside from science (biology, physics, instincts) that make us so unique among the creatures of this planet. Good luck relating to people without addressing . . . what makes them people.
So about those intellectual, anti-atheist whoppers I have:
It's not that I don't have any use for them. I do know plenty of Atheists. I have one very good friend who is an Atheist, but believe it or not, we have never gotten into an argument concerning apologetics, and God, I hope we never do. It's not that I'm afraid to, it's just that I don't see the point. I've tried it in the past, and it seems . . . utterly futile. The amazing thing I've been learning since my old attempts to argue apologetics is the wisdom behind a phrase that you may have heard:
"People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."
Three questions Christians need to ask themselves before sparring with Atheists:
1. Am I trying to win an argument, or trying to win a soul?
2. Which is more important?
(and the ever-applicable)
3. What Would Jesus Do?
(and no, not your hippie, relativist Jesus, the REAL Jesus whose unabridged teachings make us uncomfortable sometimes)
What do I do, instead of arguing apologetics? I live my life, as best as I can, by God's grace. I let my light shine before those who do not believe, which is really the more difficult thing to do, if you think about it, because anyone can regurgitate head knowledge, but good character is something we all fall short of-- something very hard to obtain and maintain, but very powerful. You know what cracks me up? When people ask me if I'm a Christian, and I never did or said anything to indicate it. I think this is a good thing.
Now, don't get me wrong: there is certainly a time and place for a scientific, intellectual defense of faith. BUT, it must be done with the true heart of a witness, and out of love. BUT, you must pray, or you just might fall on your face and make us all look like idiots. BUT, your goal should be to convert the soul, not to prove your point.
Remember, people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. In fact, this is where logic and philosophy really shine, and in my opinion, trump science, because they address what it is to be human, and not just a bunch of matter smashed together. Honestly, if you reduce us to science, what's the point? We might as well kill and rape each other to ensure our supremacy, if there's nothing unique about being human, and human society.
Of course, there are those who trumpet science as the pen-ultimate of knowledge, the necessity in a world of unnecessaries, and the pinnacle of thought. These people will laugh in your face if you can't feed them science quickly and efficiently. They will dismiss all that is not based in science because, as they say, science is superior. And my response is . . .
Why?
Seriously, why is science so much better than anything else? Most people who believe science is everything can't help but offer circular reasoning for this position.
Why is science superior to reason?
Because it can be tested.
Why does testing prove science's validity?
Because testing is superior.
Maybe I'm way out of left field on this one, but seriously, why is science better? Even if testing does inherently make something superior, how do you know if you are performing the right tests? Do you have enough data to test correctly? How do you know if you're interpreting the data from your (already possibly wrong) test correctly?
Weren't great scientific minds once convinced that the Earth was flat? Or that Atoms are as small as matter gets? Or that the world only needed 7 computers? Or that Mercury pills cure many a disease?
These are all ideas that were tested by very smart people, and proven correctly . . . at the time . . . with different tests. And what, exactly, makes us so sure that we're smarter than them? Isn't it possible, and even probable that someone will come along in 100 years and use science to blow everything we know to pieces? History would say so. So why is science so gosh darn bankable if it's always changing?
Why?
If I went the 5-year-old route and responded to every defense of science with "why?" what would they say? Look at this from a witnessing standpoint: If you can't even trust the genre of reason for your faith, you probably shouldn't rely on it too much in your defense of Christ.
On the other hand, faith and love, coupled with logic, reason, and patience (something we know nothing of, unfortunately) give you a gospel that is unstoppable.
Science? No thanks. I'll defend Christ with faith and love. Try disproving those.
This is an interesting post because I was having a similar discussion with some friends just a couple days ago. We were discussing more specifically how much even science depends on testimony; someone who's an adamant materialist and skeptic cannot be consistent unless he himself has done every experiment and takes nothing based on the testimony of someone else. When it comes down to it, every person is trusting the testimony of someone else; the difference between me and an atheist is not that he's using "science" to come to his conclusions and I'm using "faith"; the only difference is that we've chosen to place our trust in different sources. He's trusting the word of a long line of philosophers and scientists who've done thinking and experimentation that he hasn't done, and I'm trusting the word of a God who understands things better than I will ever be able to. I'm okay with that.
ReplyDeleteTo go back to your earlier point about Christians having motives of personal self-reinforcement rather than the glory of God, I totally agree. Most of the apologetic polemic arguments I hear (though very well-intentioned and probably appropriate in some circumstances) generally lead me to a feeling of superiority and self-congratulation, which is not to be our attitude toward outsiders. Jesus used love, not unanswerable proofs or pithy one-liners, to start His church.
It's funny that you mention "pithy one-liners," Bobbo, because I was originally going to include that very phrase, but ended up re-writing the section. PD always had a lot of them, and they're certainly entertaining for Christians, but as far as witnessing goes, they're rather useless.
ReplyDeleteThis idea about testimony is quite interesting as well. I've heard of asking a "tester" if they've ever been to London, and why they believe in it if they haven't been there, but this is an interesting take in the same line of reasoning.
Ever consider that, in a way, we all received our faith on the testimony of other people, going back to Jesus himself? Today, we may know a theoretical and spiritual Jesus, but if we had the ability to trace it, I'm sure we would find a line of witnesses for each of us, going all the way back to the original witnesses, who actually KNEW Jesus.
I may write a blog about that one sometime. I just butchered the thought by trying to cram it in.
The beauty of science is that it is always changing. It can "evolve," if you will, with what we learn. Religion, on the whole, is very stagnant. Personal belief can change, evolve, but I feel the core of the Abrahamic religions has remained unchanged for millenia, while humanity has come very, very far since then (thanks to scientific advancements).
ReplyDeleteEven the one document that almost anyone can agree is nearly perfect (the Constitution) is ever-changing and adapting with our current knowledge. I don't deny the value in the consistency that religion offers to humanity. Religion has been the basis of a moral code in many places throughout history (for better or worse), it has helped govern, and it has given aid for millenia. But I do think that in order for something to be effective, it needs to be adaptable, and can the direct word of god be adapted?
I think it is a losing battle to defend religion with "science." Religion is based on love and faith, two things wholly inconsistent with science. You cannot prove to someone else that a god exists, but that is what makes belief so powerful I think. It is a personal thing that only you can know for yourself, and no one else can prove or know for you. Religious belief is only an absolute truth for the individual, and it is a very personal thing.
This is also why debating religion is so pointless. On the one side you have "science" and "reason," and on the other you have "love" and "faith." Four abstract concepts that do not mesh with each other. It's like trying to argue if Coke is better than yogurt. They fulfill two entirely different purposes in life and don't go well together!
I do not argue with people over the validity of their beliefs, because I don't know what I believe, only what I do not. I don't pretend to know how the universe was created, because no one really knows. There are people that believe that it was created from nothing, either by spontaneous reaction or via a creator. I see both options as equally impossible, so I don't concern myself with trying to figure it out.