Suppose your friend is accused and convicted of stealing an ancient and valuable Frisian vase from the local museum. As it happens, you remember clearly that at the time this vase was stolen, your friend was in your office defending his eccentric views about the gospel of John. You have testified to this in court, but to no avail. I come along and offer to do a scientific investigation to see whether your view here is in fact correct. You are delighted, knowing as you think you do that your friend is innocent.
When I explain my methods to you, however, your delight turns to dismay. For I refuse to accept the testimony of memory; I propose to ignore completely the fact that you remember your friend's being in your office. Further, my method precludes from the start the conclusion that your friend is innocent, even if he is innocent. Could I blame you for losing interest in my 'scientific' investigation?
But the traditional Christian ought to view Troeltschian HBC [Historical Biblical Criticism] with the same suspicion: it refuses to admit a source of warranted belief (the testimony of Scripture) the traditional Christian accepts, and is precluded in advance from coming to such conclusions as that Jesus really did arise from the dead and really is the divine Son of God.
- Alvin Plantinga, Two (or More) Kinds of Scripture Scholarship
No comments:
Post a Comment