The Search For Truth
I have long since struggled with my role in the search for truth. I often wonder whether truth is even a feasible concept to be grasped, and during this time I resorted to relativism to explain what I perceived to be a futile effort. After all, why keep searching for absolute, foundational truth when such an item does not even exist? I was broken, confused, and I was left hopeless in a search for what appeared to be nothing. Thankfully this was only short-lived. I found the most consolation in the work of Rene Descartes. While some of his observations were tenuous, his desire to eliminate dead dogmas from his consciousness inspired me to do the same.
"Several years have now passed since I first realized how numerous were the false opinions that in my youth I had taken to be true, and thus how doubtful were all those that I had subsequently built upon them. And thus I realized that once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundation, if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting the the sciences."1
From modeling Rene's pursuit, I then learned of what it meant to have an existence in such a massive universe. The study of probability theory concerning the existence of life led me to shy away from such naturalistic conclusions. Slowly, my existential understanding of man and his purpose was eroding away. It was then left to answer if "God" was a personal or inpersonal force; was he out to get us or was he for us; and also whether he had any desire to relate to us in a understandable form.
The Search For A Personal Creator
The concepts underlying Deism (that God started the universe but has since had no involvement) seemed irrelevant at best and horrific at worst. Why would God create us only to leave us to our own devices? It seemed incompatible with sound reason, and I realize it was a position often accepted out of necessity by scientists or other skeptics who couldn't explain their cosmology any other way but admitted to a designer.
The idea of God as a personal force (contra Buddhism, Daoism, and other Eastern thought) found the most appeal to my philosophical conclusions. The God apparent in monotheism seemed the most logical and intuitive (with the premise that the existence of God is intuitive [Rom 1:18-20]). Only the God of Christianity appeared to answer the questions I had looming in my mind. To realize that God desired not only to make himself known but also known in a personal way is a very intriguing and compelling thought.
The Continued Search For Truth
While abbreviated, the search for truth I continue to struggle with. My friend, Aaron Shafovaloff, said one of the most provocative things I've ever heard (Christian or non-Christian). Paraphrased, he said that if someone presented him a logical, reasonable proof that Christianity is false the he would hope he would have the intellectual honesty to abandon it. I was taken a back to hear such a claim! But the resounding truth of the statement propelled me to continue searching for truth.
The Bible doesn't not start with an proof of God's existence per se, but throughout the Bible God's existence is defended through miracles, prophecy, and self-revelation. One needs only to read the account of the Exodus, conquest of Canaan, rescue from exile, and most importantly the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah. Jesus gave miracles, apologised from the Old Testament of himself, and even appeared evidentially to his followers as a proof of his existence (which Paul uses as a defense of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15). It seems as though God wants us to search for him and worship him in spirit and truth.
"'Come now, and let us reason together,' Says the LORD, 'Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.'" (Isa 1:18)
- Descartes, René, and Donald Cress. Meditations on First Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1993. pg. 17 [Back]
Mar 4th 2007 
5 Comments 
Mar 5th 2007
Very very interesting Chris.
Do you ever wonder about other sources of information? I have wondered, for a long time, about what weight to put on words outside of the Bible (including commentaries). Christianity teaches so clearly that one book is inspired and that man is fallible (and therefore all his writings are fallible). I bring this up because you mentioned how you received consolation from Descartes. I have felt comforted by Lewis (and Pascal and Kierkegaard) and wondered - where am I puting my faith? Is this fair? How does man's reason intertwine with God's? There has to be some overlap, right? Or there could be no communication between God and man. A thought that comes to mind is the commonly heard phrase, "All truth is God's truth." Of course, that's not in the Bible but it's a proposition I accept. I don't know how anyone could deny it. Anyway, those are some poorly defined thoughts that are loosely connected to what you wrote. Below is what I really wanted to say.
Regarding abandoning Christianity in the face of logic, this is a question I've asked for a long time but never actually uttered out loud. I am glad you did! And your friend Aaron. I have actually never asked anyone. This concept came up, more or less, in a discussion I was in on WorldMag blog (a very, very fascinating blog). The topic was The Jesus Tomb, of recent history. Here's a link: http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2007/02/draftthe_empty.html The question is really one of how faith and reason interact.
Here's my take on the matter. When I, as a human, attempt to determine anything, I never use purely reason or purely faith. It is some combination of the two. Always. (We think too simplisticly when we attempt to pick one or the other.) For example, I have never had a conscious belief without first having a reason to have that belief. Second, all philosophizing (or reasoning or understanding) is based on a set of assumptions or axioms (which could be called faith). It is faith that allows me to reason and reason that tells me I am using my faith. Perhaps this is all obvious... but these conclusions are new to me!! I am so used to hearing people make such a huge dichotomy between these two when it appears that they cannot be dichotomized.
So, when would I abandon Christianity? (I hate to even say that phrase.) You would do so in the face of evidence. But what evidence would be enough evidence? In the face of belief, there could never be enough. Why? Because I still must choose to believe the evidence. I have the ability to doubt - I can doubt evidence. (People do go into "denial" on some things.) I can also take into account the fact that humans make mistakes - they are fallible. They are also often highly motivated by twisted motives. Basically, what I am saying here is that faith, or belief, or a priori positions account for much more than we realize, often. If I already believe in an infinite, all-powerful God, why in the world would I believe "evidence" from fallible man? The argument is stacked against man! Of course, it goes the other way just as well. If I have already chosen to believe in an empty void (no God) and the supremecy of man (humanism), I will believe the evidence (that convinces me).
And, of course, from the Christian perspective, we're not the only ones in this mix. One half of the equation is us, but the other half is God. Faith is a gift from God. Does He not already know the end from the beginning and all the "evidence" we will find? This depends on faith, something that comes from God. (Yet, so often, Jesus says "your" faith has made you well, as if it is from that person. It appears that faith is also partly from that person, not just from God, which would make sense if we are two separate entities.)
This is not directly related, but close. A book you may really enjoy is "The Seekers" by Daniel J. Boorstin. I can not recommend it enough! I think you would greatly appreciate it (and maybe some of your other blogger readers). It is not from a Christian perspective but it is great.
I'm going to stop! Sorry so long. There's so much to say on this topic. I am afraid my thoughts were not that clear and somewhat convoluted - these things are still formulating in my own mind. Glad you posted "the dreaded question" (that's what I call it). I look forward to seeing what others say!
Mar 6th 2007
I am posting again...
I was quite unclear on one key point. I used the word faith in two very different ways. When I said "Faith is a gift from God" I was referring to saving faith (the faith that makes you a Christian). However, all people, regardless of "religious" belief exercise faith daily - they are the assumptions about life that we make. This faith is relative to all people and it is the concept I was referring to in most of my post. I thought that should be cleared up...
Mar 10th 2007
@Amanda: These are good thoughts. I won't to reflect on them more to make an adequate response. Forthcoming.
Mar 11th 2007
@Amanda: I appreciate your comments, and I'm glad I had some time to mull over them. I really don't know what amount of evidence is necessary to abandon a belief system.
I remembering abandoning Buddhism and moral relativism in light of evidence to the contrary. I should say, I found evidence compelling that disproved my previously held conceptions. In other words, I made a "world view jump" to a more attractive world view.
I think there are certain things that, if disproven, can force you out of a belief system if you are honest. Disproving the historicity of the resurrection would be such an event. What that would look like however I don't know.
You asked great questions that I simply can't answer, and they are right in line with the questions I asked in this post. I appreciate it. Hopefully, we can continue to work it out together.
Mar 12th 2007
Thanks for your really honest answer. I'm still thinking... :-)