Near the end of our recent trip to Oregon, Rebecca and I stopped in to visit with my elderly great-grandfather. My great-grandmother, his wife of 72 years, had passed away earlier this year, and he was still very much grieving the loss. At the same time, he was quite convinced that the end of his life on earth was near (he is, after all, 93 years old); this, couple with his limited ability to do much else has left him to reflect on the state of his soul, and also on what it is he really believes. He told me that he had been reading the Bible (until his vision suffered a turn for the worse) and reflecting on it. The question in his own mind has been, "How do we really know?"
How do we know that any of the stuff preserved for us in this book is true? He said that he accepts Christ's role as Savior, but that this ultimately depends on whether Christ is LORD. Sure, the Bible tells us that this is true, but how do we know that the Bible tells us the truth? These are questions with which he, a lifelong Christian, is now struggling.
I was reminded of these epistemological questions by
a recent post on Mr Mark Shea's blog. A reader of his was engaged with his brother in a debate concerning the existence of God. Upon asking what evidence his brother would like to see to be convinced, his brother replied only that there was none. This is not to say simply that he has not encountered any, but rather that he cannot even think of any evidence which, if it was presented to him, would convince him otherwise. The anonymous reader continued by noting that this resembles Isaac Asimov's argument against not only the existence of God, but of the possibility of even admitting such existence: a stalwart defense given by an atheist who bases his disbelief not on evidence or lack thereof, but on the assumption that no evidence could ever be enough*.
Read the rest.
Tags: Theology Philosophy Apologetics Epistemology
