Article 26 of 40

Subject:      Re: Effect of apologetic works (was Re: Salvation through apologetics)
From:         Sam Dodsworth <sam@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Date:         1997/02/05
Message-Id:   <WRSzoGAHfN+yEwzn@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: world
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk
References:   <32D95DE7.367F@flash.net>
Organization: Annexia Free Press
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   alt.books.cs-Lewis



In article <bnh-0302971828320001@ppc-cam.chem.ucla.edu>, Bruce Hietbrink
<bnh@xenon.chem.ucla.edu> writes
>
>I'm coming in in the middle of a thread here, so accept my 
>apologies if this point has been made before.  For me, the
>"leap of faith" that is argued about in a parallel thread
>is exactly at this gap between reasonable and true.  All
>apologetics can prove is that Christianity is reasonable,
>even perhaps that it is more reasonable than any other 
>proposed explanation, but not necessarily that it is Truth.
>Perhaps, though, this was exactly Sam's point.
>
I must confess that I don't clearly remember my original point, but
starting from scratch: yes, I agree with you completely. It follows,
therefore (in my opinion) that the only position fully supportable by
logic is agnosticism - and also, therefore, that atheism likewise
requires a "leap of faith". This is something that many (but by no means
all) Christians fail to realize, leading them mistakenly to assume that
atheists exist in a sort of "vacuum of belief" and have only to be shown
the Truth to be converted. As a result, they are often puzzled by the
lack of success that attends their efforts.

Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk)
"I think there should be more sex and violence on television, not less. 
 Both are powerful catalysts of social change, at a time when change is
 desperately needed."
                        -J.G. Ballard