> ... It doesn't matter how big the leap is. As far as I can tell one
> doesn't really know what's going on until the leap/step/hop/interplanetary
> mission is made.
>
Stephen,
I guess the issue is when is it no longer possible to hold belief in
Christ as properly basic (that is, needing no further justification)?
For many of us, somewhere along the way we were faced with serious
intellectual challenges to the faith, and we could not retreat to a
fideistic fortress and believe "in spite of the evidence." Perhaaps
Kierkegaard could, and many follow him, but I prefer the Augustinian
tradition of "faith seeking understanding". As you noted earlier, we all
must accept some postulates as axiomatic. But what makes it rational to
accept just *those* postulates? That's where evidence and rational
thought come in.
And, I think, that's why John begins his 1st Epistle talking about "that which
we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and
our hands have touched," and Peter in the same vein says "We did not
follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his
majesty.... We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we
were with him on the sacred mountain" (2 Pe 1:16-18). Also, think of
Paul's Mars Hill speech, his defence before Felix and Agrippa ("These
things were not done in a corner"), as well as Luke's prologue.
So there is a significant difference between a rational step of faith and
an interplanetary journey. For the step we do in fact know where we are
going (in terms of the supporting evidence), even if we may not (do not)
know the whole pilgrimage God has for us.
BTW, I hope you do not read harshness into what I write. I thoroughly
enjoy these exchanges, and know God uses it all to mold me too. I'm not
about trying to "straighten you out."
Garry