Letters from an Atheist, Part 3

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. 


graphic credit: http://goo.gl/ljmZq2