The Adequacy of Fideism

Having reviewed the concept of understanding the idea of God totally by faith is not an accepted approach in the field of apologetics.  The core of the issue is proving the reality of religious experience which has been pursued on philosophical grounds.  The historical arguments of cosmological, ontological, moral, and teleological premises have indicated that belief in God is a possibly logical venture, but atheists have spoken against these issues, and the clear victories of William Lane Craig in his manifold debates came when his atheist opponents refused to counter these arguments.  Silverman, Law, and Kappel prove that a belligerent approach to the historic arguments reaps disaster, revealing a closed-mindedness to what could be strong ideas; Milligan performed far better in his British debate with Craig for this same reason.

To return to fideism.  The ability to find absolute proof for God's existence is just that, debatable.  And in the whole of all human experience, our ability to arrive at truth concepts is based on the opinion that such truth statements are attainable, or that the scientific dependancy on the observable can produce truth.  Such foundations is fideisitic.  I am confident that science can accomplish many positive things, heal diseases, offer convenience, fascilitate processes.  But is this the core of approaching truth claims?  I can by evaluating the observations I encounter daily to survive day by day.  I look both ways before crossing streets, scan my ever-changing driving environments to guarantee safe passage for myself and my family.  But in doing so, I must trust my eyesight and the ability of my brain to evaluate the present situations.  Truth seems to be a consious blend to evaluate and observe well, with the confidence that I am not being deceived in doing so.

In the matter of salvation, it does not depend on how many brain cells that have to be activated toward such a status salvus.  It relies on a pledge of divine sources compelled by divine assurances.  I may be able to offer demonstrations of this faith foundation as being valid in and of itself.  But it rests on faith alone.  If we examine this concept, how much of life is living in this realm of trusting what we have come to perceive, if not see?  Colin Tudge is entirely accurate:  Indeed, atheism—when you boil it down—is little more than dogma: simple denial, a refusal to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye.