Granted eight billion people on the planet and billions of Christians with different backgrounds, education, life experiences and socio-economic statuses, this doesn’t seem altogether unexpected. I wonder if the diversity is even that great given the population size. I do note we are also quite emotional and rational thought is tiring considering the amount of brain power it uses. We sometimes default what is easy but I digress. So sure, there is a lot of diversity in the world and within Christianity itself. I am not sure if you are implying we should conclude anything explicit from the amount of diversity present in and of itself?
I have provided arguments in favor of final causality and teleology several times on this forum. They are there for any who choose to dialogue with them.
Keep in mind that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago (before the enlightenment and modernity) when the Jews were pretty much considered atheists by the outside world because they were monotheists. But the point is, virtually everyone accepted the existence God or numerous gods at the time and Jesus’s primary audience was Jewish. I wouldn’t over-press what Jesus did and did not address on this front. He didn’t comment on the ethical use of the internet either and when I go to Church the pastor isn’t there trying to prove God exists to everyone. Jesus came to the house of Israel (Jewish believers) and he addressed them appropriately. Who knows how he would address people today.
Jesus actually did do things to demonstrate or prove His identity. Maybe not when impiously asked for a sign, but he did do things so that we may believe.
John 20:31 **31 **But these[e] are recorded[f] so that you may believe[g] that Jesus is the Christ,[h] the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
He also engaged in rhetoric and logic. He uses reductio ad absurdum arguments (if you believed Moses you would believe me, a house divided cannot stand), a fortiori arguments (how much more will your Heavenly Father give you good gifts), he answers questions with questions (whose face is on this coin), uses scripture against scripture (divorce) , was a Jewish rabbi and the gospels show him as engaged widely in intra-Jewish debate over a variety of issues.
We are also told to always be able to give a reason for the hope that we have in our hearts (1 Pet 3:15). This can be spiritual, logical, emotional, scriptural, experiential and so forth. Every case is different.
I also note the gospels are not ancient novels. They belong to the genre of ancient historical biography of the early Empire. They are written in close proximity to the events they narrate (living memory) so they are not myths demanding blind assent but reasoned historical testimonies. Luke explicitly opens his Gospel by stating he has carefully investigated everything from the beginning to provide “certainty” regarding the things taught.
So while we can agree in that I also don’t see faith as “a matter of logical conclusions based on sophisticated arguments,” but I also don’t see faith as blind, dumb luck, potluck, or entirely emotive. I think we need to avoid fideism. When we have faith we have to have faith in something so on a prima facie level, it would seem to me we cannot entirely disconnect it from reason. I believe grace builds on nature. Sophisticated arguments are not equivalent to faith but they seem to be the scaffolding that makes our faith rational rather than arbitrary.
I mean, why do so many leave the faith? We on Biologos know many cite the conflict between faith and science. This tells me if Christianity is not intellectually credible, if philosophers and apologists do not meet modernity and the world head on, if Christians don’t offer sound, studied exegesis of scripture, it seems the Church will hurt. Sophisticated arguments absolutely play a vital role in the Church.
Where is the happy medium for you?
Vinnie