You seem to make it a point of pride that you cannot satisfy an atheist's request for evidence of your claims.
Hi Arch,
It's been a while ...
Truthfully, I don’t really see myself as harboring a ‘sense of pride’ about my own epistemological beliefs (and perceptions), even though I am fully aware that they stand in contradistinction to those which atheists may hold, or even as other Christians may hold (surprisingly).
Perhaps what comes across to you as “a point of pride” is merely a manifestation of the epistemological matrix which presently exists within my head, a matrix that, like yours, has evolved from many personal experiences encountered during childhood and the rest of life, from hundreds of things learned at the university, and from the devouring of hundreds of books and journal articles over the years; my experiences, ideas, and sources are likely to be equally cogent to those you've encountered, but yet different.
Really, it has not been my intention to espouse a non-evidentiary epistemological position, especially not as “a point of pride,” but if I can’t “demonstrate” to you any evidences of Biblical truth, my apparent lack of effectiveness could be due to my not feeling compelled to believe that Evidentialism, Foundationalism, and Positivism afford anyone any kind of cognitive fortress, or to think that these three concepts serve as any kind of necessary epistemological starting point, particularly when religious faith is being evaluated. In other words, my present mental matrix tells me that despite the framework someone actually starts with, the whole epistemological endeavor leans more toward ‘Representative Realism’ than toward ‘Naïve Realism.’
Of course, I could be wrong, but upholding some kind of ‘pride of cognitive impotence’ isn’t something I’m trying to do. No one wants to be impotent, whether physically or mentally …
Peace
2PhiloVoid
