Jake the atheist in Texas continues to engage me in email dialogue.
You may remember that one of his first objections is:
Honesty and realism demand that we put away childish beliefs and superstitions and engage in the hard work of coming to grips with the human condition — and improving it.
My main strategy with all Jake’s arguments so far has been to question his method.
I’ve offered almost no argumentation for the truth of Christianity. Nor have I countered his assertions.
Rather: method, baby, method.
Other apologists may take a different approach. But I find that challenging Jake’s methodology is helpful for leveling the playing field.
Atheists tend to think their methods for discovering truth (rational, scientific, common-sense) are superior to those of the theist (faith-based, experiential, wishful thinking).
So if I can show otherwise — that at the very least we’re on even footing — a major gain is achieved.
Back to the argument. I wrote to Jake that my own experience has been just the opposite: that when I walk closely with Jesus my view of myself and the world is more honest, more realistic.
Now we’re in a standoff, right? That’s what I want. Jake’s experience of honesty and realism versus my experience of honesty and realism.
Ergo: Jake’s method of finding truth — in this case, via experience — is no better than mine.
