No, that's not correct. Remember. I said I consider myself to be a kind of "existentialist" as regards the Christian faith. In some ways, my thinking and subjective perceptions of the world resemble those of Pascal and Kierkegaard; but in some other ways, I still place some firm reliance upon traditions of analysis that have been developing ever since the Greek philosophers decided to evaluate the world around them in rational fashion. It's just that, as far as religion goes in general, even for Christian faith, I don't believe that the nature of the epistemology involved in faith is parallel in structure to that relied upon by today's scientists who want to touch the face of Mars or figure out what "drives" evolutionary processes. No, touching the 'Face of God' is something else both ontologically and epistemologically, altogether, and as far as I can see, it only partially involves our best efforts to make sense of it all.
See the difference?
I'm existentialist, and I incorporate Philosophical Hermeneutics into my own subjective evaluation of the world and of religion and thereby, via Critical Realism, I find myself drawn to and willing to 'leap after' the essence of the Christian faith, or more specifically, I am willing to bow before the concept of Jesus Christ as not only a historical personage, but as Lord and Savior. See? Mine is not the typical evangelical spiel that is often touted about by modern American, even Protestant, Christians who often rely upon a claim to rational assent via a supposed pure process of Evidentialism clothed upon a Foundationalist epistemological framework. So, of course it isn't 'logical' to assert the existence of God, but it is a subjectively reasonable act to do, most particularly since being rational and reasonable isn't by necessity to be equated purely with being 'logical.' Logic, in the case of religion, CANNOT reign ...
