Even the scientific method has its limitations:
First, we must concede that though we strive to minimize their influence, our personal and cultural beliefs influence our perceptions, interpretations and even our methodology.
Second, we may only apply the scientific method to what is observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. We cannot apply it to the past, only to present phenomenon.
Third [and lastly for sake of brevity], it deals in probabilities only; some things are so observably probable under repeated experience that they constitute a law, but such probability will not prevent the possibility of the exception.
But men need something to hang their hats on. Skepticism nor agnosticism will do for the thinking man [though Shermer makes a valiant effort of doubting as much as he can!] Like Descartes, they wonder that they think at all and what it all means, but they do not doubt that they are THINKING and that they ARE, thinking. Man therefore seeks to make sense of his universe, how he came to be and why and all that. Essentially, he is looking for a theory of everything, a grand unified theory that explains it all, a terminus to causation and an explanation for the effects all rolled into one. This theory of everything will be either supernatural, natural or antinatural. I don’t have much respect for those who prescribe to the whole New Age “it’s all spiritual” “it’s all god” Church of Oprah sort of antinaturalism nor the “everything is an illusion” schtick. Pantheism, Christian Science, Buddhism… ugh. I try to be gracious, but – come on! – “suffering is just an illusion” is just denialism. You’re all gods? No wonder the universe is so messed up with such an array of impotent wannabe deities running amock! Where’s the rationalism in those approaches?
An aside: I actually have more respect for atheism than I do either skepticism [We can't know anything] or agnosticism [We can't know if God exist] — and apatheism [I don't really care if God exists or not] is just a bunch of junior high kids flipping rational thought the proverbial bird. If you’re afraid you can’t know anything for sure, you can at least find out whether it’s probable. And if you suspect a God might probably exist, it’s reasonable to examine the evidence to see if the evidence is compelling and what that God might expect from you!
Onward then.
Rather than seeing reason as a means of compelling others to see the truth of my beliefs, I see it in a complimentary way. Faith is bolstered by reason, by evidences, but reason cannot cause faith. Why? Well, because faith has an element of will to it. We choose to believe. We choose not to believe: we reject things that don’t fit the bias of our paradigm. We might examine evidences by reason, but we choose to believe both in the validity of reason and the probability that it has led us to the most probable truth.
Now, is this just a matter of personal opinion? Not really. No. Why not? It’s a matter of what paradigm is most probable or most reasonable. I might personally believe that Christian orthodoxy is the most reasonable, but it is NOT my opinion or my personal conclusions, if you will, that matters in this investigation, but rather whether Christian orthodoxy, being a truth claim held by many, many others besides myself, both historically and in contemporary times, is a better fit for the evidence than the truth claim of atheism. [There may be ideosynchratic interpretations to your atheism, but that would be a matter of debate between two atheists, just as differences in minor points of doctrine are debateable between Christians.]
That’s an important point: This isn’t my opinion versus your opinion. This is whether there is better reason to believe in the truth claim of orthodox Christian theism versus the truth claim of atheism, or any other-ism for that matter. Now we both might be tempted to decide [faith/will] that our truth claims are reasonable enough and, not being gifted with omnipotence, I’m afraid we do have to come to a point where we say, yes, ok, I’ll hang my hat on this. But are we either fearless enough to compare whether God is God or Baal is god, so to speak, or honest enough to admit that we’re quite comfortable with the notion that we’ve enough evidence to satisfy us no matter what the other fellow has to say?
But how do we decide? We both agree that it must be carefully and rationally done. My orthodoxy compels me to point out that Christendom has always said this on the matter:
[1] That a rejection of Christianity is, in the end, a matter of volition [will] more influenced by the issue of autonomy [doing as I please versus doing as God says] and/or morality [arguably the same thing in this context];
[2] that intellectual objections may be offered but serve merely to buttress their volitional obstinancy;
[3] that ample evidence of God’s existence and attributes are found in His Creation and in moral law;
[4] that those who seek God with their whole heart will find Him [an honest search will lead to Him];
[5] that God grants faith as a grace;
[6] that it is impossible to please God without faith, because you must believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and
[7] that whoever will believe on Christ and His literal, physical resurrection from the dead will be saved.
In other words, the investigation of Christendom, from the Christian POV, requires an engaged, honest approach. But reason alone will not get you there. In the end, you will have to make a choice, which is to say you will have to utilize faith, whether to accept or reject it.
-Sirius Knott
