"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).
No comments:
Post a Comment