"My own chief interest in evidences for Christianity, as readers know, is evidence for historical events such as the resurrection. But whether it is in that area or in the area of intelligent design [...], I find myself entirely out of sympathy with the idea that Christianity is safe and respectable only insofar as it is utterly separated from evidence and believed by a leap of faith. I find that the hatred (there is really no other word) of certain groups of people for Christianity is kept at bay so long as the Christian tells everyone, in essence, "It's okay, you can quietly despise me. My faith is entirely separated from science, believed by faith, and makes no claim on your reason. If you don't feel what I feel, if you don't make the leap I've made, then there's nothing for us to say to each other. My God is indetectable by science or history. He's a tame lion."
But let the Christian for one moment imply that there is evidence, whether in the form of evidence for design in the bacterial flagellum or evidence for miracles in the early testimony of the apostles, and the wrath of all the furies comes down upon him. Sometimes it comes from his own! There is no one quite so angry at one Christian as a Christian academic who has made his faith safely neutered and then hears his Christian brother declaring that evidence supports faith. But from the secularists as well, who no longer consider the evidentialist Christian, or his God, to be safe. Now, they must heap contempt upon him. Now, they find him dangerous.
I'd rather be dangerous. And good for the advocates of Intelligent Design for asking us to consider the possibility of a detectable designer."
Lydia McGrew (source).
Post a Comment