When I don't know something, sometimes the best response is to look it up.
I agree with this. Kierkegaard was saying that even if the documents cannot be related to, God still can be, though the basis of faith in what the documents say. The documents aren't the focus, but who God is, and He is the same yesterday and today and forever.
I actually received this idea from Terry Eagleton, who is an unbeliever with a Catholic background.
Perhaps you would enjoy reading
Reason, Faith, and Revolution. Terry's argument is based on political realities, so it's more concrete and reliable than J.Budiszewski's
How To Stay Christian in College. The problem is, I've seen support for this idea from believers and unbelievers, so it seems to be widely accepted as to the nature of reality.
Now I will concede that I was raised Protestant, probably under the guidance of Reformed Theology, but I have never heard of this Van Till character. It's possible that both Terry and Bud were influenced by him, but you or I would need to do an academic study and prove it.
How can reason exist without faith?
In order to reason about information given and come to a conclusion, I have to either believe that the information is true or reject the information based on other information that I believe to be true or conclude that I need more information to form a conclusion, which is merely kicking the can of reason down the road of time until more information arrives to support a conclusion.
Or we could try it another way and ask the dreadful questions:
1. Why does anything have to exist in the first place?
Answer: Because God wanted things to exist.
2. Why does God have to exist?
Answer: Because we exist, and if God did not exist, nothing would exist.
3. Nothing existing is preferable to something existing, because something is more complex in logical reasoning than negative infinity. Therefore, existence defies reason. Why should there be a reason for anything?
Answer: Because our existence is not explained by reason, but by God's desire to create. Desire is not within the bounds of reason.
4. That is a circular argument. God exists, therefore I exist, therefore God exists?
Answer: Circular arguments are bad reasoning, but since existence is in defiance of reason, my thoughts about it are outside of reasoning, so your criticism is invalid.
Meanwhile, you have simply proven that nothing is more consistent with sound reasoning about existence than God.
5. But that is a pun...
Answer: It's still true. Therefore, something else must explain our existence, and that thing is faith. Otherwise, we may reasonably conclude that nothing is the state in which all things should be. And people wonder why the Enlightenment was violent and destructive.
Interestingly, the idea that reason depends on faith also seems to be consistent with Kierkegaard, at least according to the articles I read.
Thus, the author of this article argues that Kierkegaard is arguing for reason depending on faith as the means to solve Lessing's Ditch.
Now you can argue that Michael A. Benton is wrong, but he is quoting Kierkegaard's
Idem Postscript and
Fragments directly, so I think he has a very solid argument.
I don't think this is "Reformed Theology" at all. There are sources before the Reformation that struggle with the problem of faith. The Confessions of Boethius comes to mind. I really think that the reason you reject this idea has nothing to do with Reformed theology and everything to do with existentialism. Which is fine, but I hope to improve your self-awareness.
So what you're saying is that my whole perception is greater than the sum of its parts and is Gestalt, correct?
Human minds do not contain truth in and of themselves. They are beings made in the image of God and so point to the truth of God outside of themselves. They are also not self-existent: God made them. Nor is the truth inside them self-existent: it comes from God, notably in whatever Scripture they believe to be true. Aseity is not the word I would use to describe that at all.
I mean, trees existed back in Paul's day and they obviously weren't built by human hands. While Paul's audience wouldn't have known all the details of a tree's existence, they would have at least known that it was beyond them and they couldn't make one.
The idea that reasoning depends on faith doesn't contradict the conversion of Strobel because Strobel had a faith in something called causality, which most human beings believe in. That is the belief that if I see a tree cut down on the side of the road, I believe that something cut down the tree, not that it happened spontaneously. Cause: chainsaw. Effect: cut down tree.
If you belief in cause and effect, you can reason back from that and conclude that God exists - Strobel did that. Faith begets reasoning which begets more faith. I have faith in the conclusions of reason.
This is where Kierkegaard gets off a little bit, substituting emotion for reason in this process. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt - there's a reason why, when we have encountered people in remote tribes around the world, they are all idol worshippers instead of evolutionists. The reason why is if you conclude that God exists and observe that life is a difficult struggle and things don't work out the way you want to, you conclude that God (or the gods) aren't happy with you and you need to appease them.
Therefore, I think the belief in causality, which may be arrived at by observing creation, is what Paul is referring to there.
Wrong Scripture,
. It's not your favorite Scripture, it's the one you least want to believe and find the most annoying, if my personal experience is anything to go by.
Also, some problems are truly not spiritual, and over-spiritualizing them is unproductive. If I need a rock moved, I have found it useful to quit contemplating about why God put the rock there and just move the rock.