"Credibility has to do with the intellectual coherence and verifiable evidence for our faith. Plausibility has to do with its beauty and satisfactions - balanced realistically with its costs and struggles - as it is lived out in real life.
If we don't sufficiently stress plausibility, people may concede, "Yes, Christiaity has a certain logic, it can be seen to make sense." But, they will quickly add, "It doesn't appeal to me."
If we don't stress credibility, people may say, "Yes, those Christians are delightful folk, but how can such nice people believe such a load of nonsense?"
Brian McLaren, "The Church on the Other Side".
PS: Missional through conversations... How does that work out? Click on the comments below to see how missions and metaphysics collide
If we don't sufficiently stress plausibility, people may concede, "Yes, Christiaity has a certain logic, it can be seen to make sense." But, they will quickly add, "It doesn't appeal to me."
If we don't stress credibility, people may say, "Yes, those Christians are delightful folk, but how can such nice people believe such a load of nonsense?"
Brian McLaren, "The Church on the Other Side".
PS: Missional through conversations... How does that work out? Click on the comments below to see how missions and metaphysics collide
Comments
Are you aware of any argument that Reformed Theology suscribes to be the valid one for establishing God's existence? As far as I know, Dr. Tong himself never claims in his sermons that God's existence can be proven philosophically / mathematically. Is it because he is in agreement with Kant who had demolished all available arguments (i.e. ontology, argument from morality, etc) once and for all?
If that is the case, what is Dr. Tong's basis for believing in God? Is it just faith (because the bible told us so?) or is there anything else to complement the faith?
Dr Tong has always insisted that God is above any attempt to 'establish His existence'. The logic is pretty simple. If there is a formula, argument or system of thought that can establish God's existence, then surely God is smaller than these things, or that His existence is dependant on this argument, meaning if you don't 'establish' His existence, somehow He does not exist.
In reformed understanding, God is incontingent to our existence. Dr Tong emphasized that the existence of God is not a result of our discussion, meaning that if we discuss about God and conclude that He exists, He would not suddenly come into existence. On the other hand, if we discuss about God and conclude that He does not exist, He also would not suddenly disappear. The existence of God is the very reason why we can discuss about Him in the first place.
True to reformed theology, Dr Tong believes in election being a demonstration of grace before faith. Therefore, one believes because God's grace is upon him, for even the faith to believe must first come from God. In this manner, only the elect would believe in a manner that cannot be resisted (irresistible grace).
Dr Tong's own testimony is that he was brought up by a devout mother, whose 5 sons out of 6 became full-time servants of God. He was convinced of communism and aethism nonetheless, and spent his teenage years fiercely opposed to Christianity. But at 17, at a rally held by the late Rev Andrew Gih (a contemporary of Dr John Sung), he was moved by the Holy Spirit, wept in repentence, and went into full-time ministry, and never looked back.
From the little I've gleaned from this topic, it is indeed true that God's existence is independent of ours. He is ontologically prior to all contingent beings who owe our existence to His.
However, imho, the question, "How do we know God exists?" is not asking for us to establish the grounds for His being. It is not a question of ontology, but epistemology - How do we know 'wat we know is true' is true?
Can man know about God's existence apart from irresistible grace?
Reformed theology teaches that unless fallen man is regenerated by grace, he cannot have saving faith in God. But fallen man, apart from special grace, possess an innate "sensus divinitatis" or sense of the divine, as John Calvin put it.
Since creation, God's attribute and power has been made clearly known to man according to Romans chapter 1. If that is not so, man is not without excuse for he could plead ignorance. This knowledge does not save anyone because the biblical indictment is "Man does know about God, but he suppresses that knowledge in sin".
So the question appears valid, "How do we know about God apart from the law?"
Is it through the moral law within our hearts? Is it through the created design of nature that we see God's handiworks?
Is it through an innate sense that He is?
Even if it is, I'd venture to suggest that maybe, God is not made smaller thus... simply because it is Him who has so designed the universe and the human mind to embark on this quest of discovering Him.
I had the pleasure to personally speak to Rev Tong on his apologetic approach once... (and only once in my life!)
He told me with no apology that he's a Van Tilian.
From Westminster Seminary with JG Machen, Van Til is famous for 'the presuppositional approach' in apologetics... as i understand it, Van Tilian's starting point in any reasoning is God and His revelation in Scripture. There can be no other ground... certainly not in 'autonomous reason'.
God is not a conclusion arrived at after a series of premises and arguments... He is the axiom that makes all thoughts possible. In a sense, I think we can say that Van Til's approach is very close to Kant's transcendental argument (basically u can deny God's existence without assuming it) but he'd probably not very happy being associated with Kant's pessimism abt the role of reason in discovering truth.
Well, who can argue against 'so-called trancendental argument'? (where the laws of logic, identity and non-contradition are said to be man-made and non-applicable to God). I found that Van Til approach to be very ingenious. However, clearly Van Tilian's system will is full of fallacious circular reasoning and will lead to irrationality.
Any feed back on Ayn Rand's view on God's Existence? (as proposed in her Atlas Shurgged).
http://www.straitgate.com/bahnsen/
Remember, the transcendental argument, rightly used, does not necessarily deny laws of logic... Here is how it may work.
Atheist says: Logic tells us that God cannot exist. Or, it's immoral to kill off Egyptian firstborns
The Van Tilian will simply point out that the atheist is attacking Christianity with 'borrowed weapons'.
Logic and morality (which the atheist wields like an axe) only makes sense if God exists whose character forms the objective basis for ethics and rationality.
In the first place, why should we expect morality and logic to exist in a universe of matter, chance and energy?
To deny God, the atheist has to first assume that God exists...
Here is a response to Ayn Rand:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/randayn01.html
But I personally have a more sympathetic view of Ayn Rand's assertion that all men seek their own happiness, and this is a universal experience... not necessarily bad one. My only complaint is that they do not seek their happiness IN God.
Hedonese, thanks for the site links,
I was a christian and was baptised when i was teenager. Now I am angling betweeen Objectivism, Existentialism mixed with Buddhism for spirituality and peace of mind :-). Maybe I am not one of the elects lol...
Basically, I am still searching for the proof of God since I am in agreement with Rand that to be moral is to believe in something only the weigh of the evidence is in favor of it - or perhaps, I am just like what Dr.Tong / Schopenhauer said: pretending to rationalize things when deep down I just want to have more freedom in my life :-).
I just feel that once we allow irrationality to enter, lots of dangerous things can happen (dark ages, witch hunting, crusades).
You wrote: To deny God, the atheist has to first assume that God exists...
I am wondering what's wrong with first assuming that God exists? In math for example, in order to prove or disprove a theorem, we can first assume if the theorem were true and deduct a conclusion. If the conclusion is found to be contradictory then we would disprove the theorem
I 100% agree with you about irrationality is unbiblical and biblical faith must be grounded (not limited) by evidence and reason! So keep searching with an open heart, fren!
But have you thot about "How much evidence is enuff for your faith?" If we dun set the criteria, we may keep moving the goalposts...
Having said that, ur also right that there are powerful psychological reasons that motivate us to deny God under the guise of reason... (ie moral autonomy) just as there are powerful psychological reasons that motivate us to believe in God as well! (peace of mind?)
Lemme illustrate the 'transcendental argument' and how it differs frm testing theorems...
For example, the law of noncontradiction... Socrates realise that you simple CAN"T prove that law or give evidence for it. The moment you try, you are engaged in circular reasoning... But in order to disprove the law of noncontradiction, you must also assume tat it's true to do so. (Even those who claim that logic is man-made can't seem to escape the law themselves!!) So in trying to deny logic, they must employ logic... which is self defeating..
So it is with God's existence!
Hedonese, thanks for insightful comments.
I am basically in agreement with Rand in the sense that it's the Theists that must prove their claim - it's not the atheists / agnostics job to disprove it (Similar to those who claim that there exists a black swan or alien).
In this sense, although I feel that I am honestly searching for the truth, I also think that I am actually not morally obligated to do so - hence, should not be punished :-) (the same way that we should not pay too much time and effort to find out whether black swan exists). Maybe that's the reason why that I am attracted to Objectivism, Existentialism and Buddhism in the sense that they are talking about what is and can be known and not speculating about untestable hypothesis.
Regarding proving the negative (non-existence of God). I think it can be done for example by defining God as omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being and find out if such being can exist simply by analysing the internal consistency among the properties i.e. like finding out if 'squarish circle' can exist.
You wrote "But have you thot about "How much evidence is enuff for your faith?" If we dun set the criteria, we may keep moving the goalposts..."
This was enlightening to me and I will give some thot on it. But at the same time, I also think that the Theist should also set the criteria, otherwise, they can always play around with the definition of God so that it becomes more and more untestable.
Honestly, similar to Kant, I also feel that deep down sometimes I feel that God must exist. But do you guys can honestly say that doubt never arises in your heart that it's also possbile that God doesn't exist and the universe was just simply there? Elder Yong wrote that Dr.Tong never looked back ever since, but maybe that was when he was young and still unfamiliar with latest scientific discoveries or other conflicting theories on the subject. Can Dr.Tong honestly look into other people's eyes and say that he never had slightest doubt all his life ever since he became the servant of God? And what does the bible say about people in this situation (who goes on believing in God but intermitently has slight doubts - due to his diligent n continuous research)...will they be saved? In this case, happy are those who believe in Jesus and never have doubts because he/she never knows other conflicting arguments (due to limited intellect or lack of study).
Just some parting comments as we close.
I dun think doubt is a bad thing at all. Nobody is without the slightest bit of doubt, except maybe for blind fundamentalists. Dr Tong never appeared to me as somebody who holds to blind faith, in his conversations with adherents of other religions.
Doubt is not a sin, unbelief is.
Unbelief says, "I will not believe, no matter wat discovery we make". Doubt says, "I dunno yet... I believe, help my unbelief".
My own spiritual pilgrimage was and still is accompanied by doubt, it keeps me learning. But I dun expect every Christian to be philosophical... God has wired us differently. But I think loving God with our minds involves knowing why and what we believe better.
While I agree that theists need to prove their claims, it doesn't follow that the atheistic worldview has no burden of proof at all. This is a logical fallacy called "winning by default". We cannot negatively dismantle the competition, without also positively constructing ours.
Alvin Plantinga has done some serious work to justify that it is within the epistemic right of theist or atheist to start with certain first principles... Otherwise we'd go into an infinite regress of proofs.
There is no moral implication whether a black swan exists, but surely, a philosophically-savvy chap like you, my fren, can see that if a personal and moral Creator/Judge exists, it would have enormous implications on how we conduct our lives on earth?
But please do share with me if you've decided on 'how much proof is sufficient for your faith'... For me, if it can be shown that the attributes of God are internally contradictory as a square circle, I'm obligated to change my Christian views or to abandon them. So here's a goalpost u can aim for.
Take care, and I hope that we can learn and walk together in our spiritual pilgrimage!
PS: Is nirvana a testable hypothesis?
i liked the comment : "How much evidence is enuff for your faith?" If we dun set the criteria, we may keep moving the goalposts...
and : Doubt is not a sin, unbelief is. Unbelief says, "I will not believe, no matter wat discovery we make". Doubt says, "I dunno yet... I believe, help my unbelief".
very clear and goes right to the heart.