nlt@duke.UUCP (N. Tinkham) (05/25/84)
[*]
Daryel Akerlind's challenge to Christians seems to have gotten little
response. So I'll step out and give my answer to his questions
(good questions, by the way). What follows should be read as a
description of my own state-of-belief, not as an apologetic writing.
It is not intended as a persuasive defense of Christianity.
Yes, I as a Christian do feel challenged by points 1 and 2. It is a
challenge that for years I have been posing for myself, one that needs
to be met and one that I have not yet met to my satisfaction.
The objective evidence for Christianity is neither strong enough
to remove my doubts nor minimal enough to be ignored. The former we've
been arguing about as long as I've been reading net.religion and needs
little further comment, except to state that I have found neither
proof nor compelling evidence to satisfy me beyond all doubt that
Christianity (or even Theism) is true. The latter point, I think,
is the one that shouldn't be overlooked: I have found neither
proof nor compelling evidence to satisfy me beyond all (or even
"reasonable") doubt that Christianity or Theism is false.
I do not think that the response "I cannot prove the validity of
Christianity, therefore I will not believe it" is a safe one.
There are statements which are true but not provable. And there are
statements which are true but for which I have little or no evidence
(unrecorded details of past events, e.g.). Christianity may be
a sound belief system even though I cannot prove that to myself.
And on this matter I am more concerned with accuracy than with
minimizing the number of assumptions in my belief system.
I am convinced that Christianity, on the whole, is *consistent*
internally and with the world as I perceive it. That's not quite as
much as I would like (there may well be other consistent systems),
but it seems to be as much as deductive and inductive reason can
tell me. I'm afraid I haven't yet found an adequate tool for
choosing among separate, internally consistent systems.
I do not share the certainty of many of my fellow Christians
(or of many atheists, for that matter). What I can tell you is
that I believe that I have made a reasonable, educated guess,
that I continue to look at evidence on both sides, and that truth
and accuracy do indeed matter to me.
N. Tinkham
duke!nlt (Duke University)liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (05/26/84)
#R:duke:-438500:uiucdcs:33000057:000:1061
uiucdcs!liberte May 25 22:26:00 1984
I like the sound of this. It bears repeating.
"It bears repeating.. It bears repeating.." No not that...
/**** uiucdcs:net.religion / nlt@duke / 12:23 pm May 25, 1984 ****/
...
The objective evidence for Christianity is neither strong enough
to remove my doubts nor minimal enough to be ignored.
...
I do not share the certainty of many of my fellow Christians
(or of many atheists, for that matter). What I can tell you is
that I believe that I have made a reasonable, educated guess,
that I continue to look at evidence on both sides, and that truth
and accuracy do indeed matter to me.
N. Tinkham
duke!nlt (Duke University)
/* ---------- */
The "But what if it's true?" doubt is as important as
the "Where's the beef?" doubt.
Join the ranks of the Agnostic-agnostics. "Seek and yea shall find."
Daniel LaLiberte (ihnp4!uiucdcs!liberte)
U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science
{moderation in all things - including moderation}