Day 53 – conflicting testimony: whom do I believe?
Contrast this with the converts to theism above, who use rational arguments to buttress their subjective beliefs, arguments that have stood the test of time. Their personal testimony rests squarely upon an objective foundation. For this reason, their witness seems to me the most credible, the kind most likely to sway an impartial jury.
Blaise Pascal, Pensees No. 430 (trans. H. F. Stewart; New York: Random House, [n.d.], [n.p.].
Christian theism must be rejected. –GEORGE H. SMITH
The evidence of God’s existence…is more than compelling. –BLAISE PASCAL
I have always been a little wary of making decisions based on subjective testimony. It can be difficult to gauge the truth of what the person is saying, and he or she may be inclined to spin it in the most favorable light. What results is a testimony that is a hybrid of that person's experience and perspective. It cannot be trusted, for the same reason a personal testimony on a television infomercial can't be trusted: there may be a tendency to make things appear better or more certain than they are.
In such cases, I try to look for things that tend to lend credibility to the story. Does the person have anything to gain from it? If not, it is more likely to be true. Does he or she back up the story with objective evidence? If so, it is to be taken more seriously. Is the person, by giving the testimony, placed in a position where he or she may be criticized and penalized instead of praised and rewarded? If so, the testimony has much more the ring of truth to it. Is his or her testimony as a whole logical? If it is, it may merit a closer look.
In such cases, I try to look for things that tend to lend credibility to the story. Does the person have anything to gain from it? If not, it is more likely to be true. Does he or she back up the story with objective evidence? If so, it is to be taken more seriously. Is the person, by giving the testimony, placed in a position where he or she may be criticized and penalized instead of praised and rewarded? If so, the testimony has much more the ring of truth to it. Is his or her testimony as a whole logical? If it is, it may merit a closer look.
I have already pointed out that a good many atheists have changed their position and have begun to bear witness to the reality of God. I have recognized others who have made the change in the opposite direction, ex-believers who now espouse atheism. As I have sifted through their conflicting testimonies, I have noticed several things that make the converts to theism more believable.
If you analyze the collective witness of theists-turned-atheists, you will encounter five reasons they do not believe in God. One is that scientific evidence points them toward atheism. The classic example is Darwin, who left on his famous excursion a Christian and returned an agnostic. Others point to the unjustified pain and suffering on earth as evidence that God doesn't exist. Charles Templeton, a former teammate of Billy Graham and the author of Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith, uses this approach. A third reason given is the inability of theists to prove beyond a doubt the existence of God. A fourth is the fact that theism has always been embraced by some who have acted in ways completely antithetical to its tenets. If these four accusations are answered, all that remains is a subjective intuition that atheism is right. Those who have already made up their minds usually make this final defense.
The collective witness of atheists-turned-theists is qualitatively different. Staunch atheists—men of intellect and leadership such as C. S. Lewis, Patrick Glynn, Lee Strobel, and Charles Colson—have begun to believe in God and have defended their change of direction. Having been there before, they have exposed the following weaknesses in atheistic rhetoric:
If you analyze the collective witness of theists-turned-atheists, you will encounter five reasons they do not believe in God. One is that scientific evidence points them toward atheism. The classic example is Darwin, who left on his famous excursion a Christian and returned an agnostic. Others point to the unjustified pain and suffering on earth as evidence that God doesn't exist. Charles Templeton, a former teammate of Billy Graham and the author of Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith, uses this approach. A third reason given is the inability of theists to prove beyond a doubt the existence of God. A fourth is the fact that theism has always been embraced by some who have acted in ways completely antithetical to its tenets. If these four accusations are answered, all that remains is a subjective intuition that atheism is right. Those who have already made up their minds usually make this final defense.
The collective witness of atheists-turned-theists is qualitatively different. Staunch atheists—men of intellect and leadership such as C. S. Lewis, Patrick Glynn, Lee Strobel, and Charles Colson—have begun to believe in God and have defended their change of direction. Having been there before, they have exposed the following weaknesses in atheistic rhetoric:
1. when atheists use science as proof, they fail to
acknowledge a whole body of scientific evidence
acknowledge a whole body of scientific evidence
that points toward God;
2. when they refer to the world's pain as evidence against God's existence, they fail to see that it's God's nature (not His existence) that is put on trial by suffering;
3. when they accuse theists of being unable to prove their case, they are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black;
4. when they point to religion's atrocities as reason to abandon faith, they fail to acknowledge that the good done in the name of God far outweighs the bad, that democracy has its warts as well and they have yet to abandon it;
5. when they refuse to change their position no matter the argument, all they are left with as the basis of their belief is subjective opinion—hearsay and hunch—with little or no objective foundation.
Contrast this with the converts to theism above, who use rational arguments to buttress their subjective beliefs, arguments that have stood the test of time. Their personal testimony rests squarely upon an objective foundation. For this reason, their witness seems to me the most credible, the kind most likely to sway an impartial jury.
Daily Quotations
George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Amherst, NY.: Prometheus Books, 1989), 51.
Blaise Pascal, Pensees No. 430 (trans. H. F. Stewart; New York: Random House, [n.d.], [n.p.].
No comments:
Post a Comment