LINK: Josh Claybourn discusses which side should have the burden of proof in the God exists-God doesn't exist debate. Having had to suffer through a year of arguments for and against God's existence (in Philosophy 202 and 389), I came to the conclusion a few years ago that all arguments on this topic are equally bad.
As a theist, presenting a logical argument for the existence of God is, I think, a sucker's game, because no one will be convinced if they're not willing to let themselves be convinced (and few people getting involved in these arguments are). As a Christian, I think there's an additional component, what Kierkegaard (in The Concept of Anxiety, still the best explication of what happened in the Garden of Eden that I've ever read) called "quantitative steps to a qualitative leap:" that is, the argument will only take you so far. To make the last jump (from understanding the logical implications of having such a view to, as it were, possessing it internally) requires some sort of outside motive force, which I always understood (in this particular case) to be the action of the Holy Ghost. It's not so much that the argument can't get you there (whether or not it does is God's judgment call), but putting too much stock in developing any particular argument risks missing a central point of what makes Protestant faith what it is within Christianity.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
No comments:
Post a Comment