Thank you for your heartfelt post, I’m sure many people here will resonate with the constant tension between reason and other faculties like love, imagination, and wonder. At the end of the day I keep coming back to the idea that people either encounter God in a very experiential way, or they don’t. I wish I knew what makes the difference or some kind of “how to” but I don’t.
I think one avenue of inquiry that might be interesting to you is the intersection of brain science and theology. Specifically how people are applying attachment psychology to religious experiences and spiritual formation. There are lots of podcasts with Christians of various faith traditions talking about this.
Another topic you might be interested in is the philosophy of Esther Lightcap Meek. She explores what it looks like to use love as an epistemology.
I think your use of the word “apologetics” seems different from what I have in mind. In a good way, I think. And maybe @adamjedgar has something different in mind.
I know my reactions toward apologetics have annoyed some folks here. But what I am familiar with that is marketed by that name today is just as much a turn off to me.
Still, for people who are caught between argument and counter-argument, apologetic arguments are not all the helpful. Everything remains at the level of theory.
One can choose to follow one way or the other, or just ignore the whole thing.
You’re spotting some problems with the atheistic “evolutionary” narrative. Are these evolutionary glitches or useful features supported by natural selection because they support cooperation and successful reproduction? If we can’t tell which they are supposed to be, that raises questions about just how meaningful the “evolutionary” explanation is and whether it really is all that scientific. One can come up with a way to explain anything away, but is an idea that explains every possible outcome actually meaningful? To use Gould’s phrase, how can we tell that these evolutionary “explanations” are not merely just so stories? Sure, anything might have some sort of evolutionary benefit, but has someone actually demonstrated likely conditions where such beliefs do convey an advantage over not having them?
That is not to say that evolution cannot be the means by which the ability to sense such things was created. After all, God’s laws are not arbitrary hoops to jump through, but directions on what is good for us. So it would not be surprising if they do convey some biological advantage in the purely evolutionary sense. But assuming that it must be merely evolution and nothing more is an unverified assumption. After all, one could claim that the development of models claiming that particular human beliefs, emotions, etc. can be explained evolutionarily is merely an evolutionary ploy by the sociobiologists to make themselves look smarter than everybody else while casting aspersions on everyone else’s motives, thus making themselves look more impressive to prospective mates.
The Bible has several appeals to the wonder of creation and the joys of life as arguments for God’s existence. Not as rigorous logical proof, but common sense (or perhaps common sensation) appeal. Evolution works great as a model of biological patterns, but that is all it is. It cannot tell us that there is nothing more, because biological evolution itself is nothing more than a biological pattern.
Certainly.
I wasn’t sure if you had something else in mind.
But precisely what is that decision? A decision to act inspite of doubt? a decision that the thing is true enough (although one can’t be sure)? A decision to “believe” in spite of what the mind says? … You get my drift.