Some More Random Thoughts on Philosophers that I Read during Seminary, or a Second Maieutic Brief

Philip Clayton attempts, I think, to deal with the fact that as Christians we often try to explain our faith using scientific language; yet, rarely hold ourselves to firm scientific standards. I am convinced that this is his claim, "when persons do treat religious beliefs as explanations, they rarely proceed according to the highest scientific standards" (Clayton, 103). The immediate dilemma for me is two-fold. Can the reasons and explanations I give for my faith be according to the standards of another system? Can the faith that I hold to and live by even be explained rationally?

I do not think that a simple "yes" or "no" solution can answer these epistemological inquiries. The world in which I live is permeated by many different world structures. These influencing factors include religion, science, relationships, and life experiences. The reasons that I give for my faith are often given using the languages of other structures. Because I have been exposed to many ways to look at reality, I do think it is capable, in a limited way, to explain my faith according to the standards of another system. Clayton states something rather similar, "in reality, a vast array of nonrational factors exert their influences in actual cases of religious commitment" (Clayton, 117).

The second question that I established for myself is not easily answered. This question is what I consider to be the basis of all epistemological discussions. It is not a matter of whether faith exists or whether reason is capable. The issue is over how these two relate to each other. This question has great impact upon my concept of evangelism. When I seek to share my faith with someone, I am asking that person to reject their world view and accept mine. How I explain and give reasons for my faith, my world view, is directly impacted by the languages of many different structures. I do believe that I can express my faith using reason, but I do not think that my faith is all reason. This could be similar to Clayton's comment, "the objects of religious belief and experience may well lie beyond human grasp, but complexes of religious meaning and belief need not" (Clayton, 113). In the end, I think I can explain my faith somewhat by using reason and scientific language, but any attempt for me to explain God fully will fall short in light of the holiness of God.

John Newport carries this discussion into the realm of practice and modern day application. For several decades now the issue of the relationship between science and a Biblical world view has been hotly debated. I am afraid, though, that in the last several years there has been only screaming and no listening nor dialogue.

From the side of ultra-conservative or fundamentalist Christianity, only heated words, hate mail, and bomb threats have been presented. This perspective sees no alternative to a rigid view of literal creation seen in Genesis. Periodicals, textbooks, and entire schools have been established to support "an anti-evolutionist and biblically literal creationist position" (Newport, 122). These people argue for equal time in presenting both views, yet once they are in control only creationism will be taught. I can understand the fears and deep emotions rooted in this discussion but this is no excuse for hatred, slander, and threats!

The scientific, or more importantly, the evolutionist perspective, has just as much guilt and is equally blameable for the modern polarization. Modern scientists have forgotten their own past. Newport agrees further, "it should be noted that the Protestant Reformation made an important contribution to the new science" (Newport, 128). Many scientists who hold to an evolutionist perspective have not been faithful to their own scientific method. The scientific method has proven "microevolution," but, in spite of what some scientists say, "macroevolution" is not proven by scientific theory. Modern scientists must remain faithful to the scientific method, rather than making unprovable hypotheses in absolutist language.

There must be made room for dialogue, or both sides of the debate will loose, and even worse forsake their own purpose. The Christian perspective must include proper hermeneutic principles applied to the Genesis account. The answer, "because the Bible says so!" is not enough, we must explain our reasons in a logical and proper manner. The scientific community must also stay away from making assumptions rather than deductions! They need to recognize that an attack on macroevolution is not necessarily an attack on microevolution (Newport, 139). The increasing tendency towards polarization can be turned around if the Christian community would act first in love, redemption, and humility (Christlikeness) and the scientific community would remain faithful to its own methods and avoid improper and premature reasoning. In this, inter and intra-community dialogue will be possible and profitable for both sides!

Yandall Woodfin has much to say about finding a theory of knowledge or epistemology. I find his analogy of Winnie the Pooh very similar to my own pilgrimage through this land of faith and reason. I have many times joined the hunting or searching not knowing quite what it was I was looking for. Furthermore, as I continued the journey around and around and around, I became convinced that what I was seeking was awesome in size and strategic in importance. Until, out of the Sacred Blue, God's voice of reason, or the voice of His messenger, says, "Silly old Bear, what were you doing?" (Woodfin, 17). I had gotten myself into such a tizzy that I did not even know where I began or where I would end.

Dr. Woodfin properly states, " . . . there is always the danger that one will become so involved in the process of knowing that one will distort what is being known" (Woodfin, 18). I have discovered for myself through the experiences of this life, that knowing God and knowing that what I know are really two sides of the same coin. This coin that I flip daily is that of reality. What is real and how do I know it once I have found it? The reason that I do not get bogged down here anymore is out of epistemological humility. I am not the first to ask this question and will not be the last. Many great thinkers have come this way and enlightened the path, while others have wandered from the path and were lost forever in skepticism. I agree with Woodfin, the issue for me is not that I know God and I know that I know, the issue is being known by Him (Woodfin, 36-37).

Alvin Plantinga and Terrence Tilley seem to be on opposing sides. More specifically, Tilley appears to be confronting Plantinga and other reformed epistemologists for offering no proof in their contention that belief in God is properly basic (Tilley, 237 and Plantinga, 93). In this argument, I tend to lean more towards Tilley than Plantinga. It seems to me that a reformed epistemology assumes too much in the beginning to build a proper epistemology. This position tends to depend, I contend, more upon presupposition rather than philosophical inquiry. Plantinga seems to make possible the acceptance of any god (Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, et.al.) without reason or inquiry. In the end, his illustration of the Great Pumpkin tends to take away from his syllogism rather than support it (Plantinga, 104).

I believe firmly with Tilley when he establishes the inconsistency of hyper-fundamentalists, who often associate with a reformed epistemology (Tilley, 253). Tilley, I allege, takes more into consideration than just the scriptures (not viewing this negatively). We all take into our religious decisions a lifetime of experiences, community expectations, and subjective reasoning. Using the approach of Tilley, it is possible both to dialogue and to persuade others within the religious community, and those without. Over two-thirds of the world does not know the God of Christian theists, it would be quite improper to assume that their god and my God are united in a belief that is properly basic! It is my contention that this does not weaken or destroy my faith in God, rather it reminds me that my faith was born of a community and remains in a community; not in isolation from the world!