I mentioned in a post below somewhere that Dawkins responded to the idea that his friend Aayaan Hirsi Ali, and I have no idea how close I got iwth that spelling, who now calls herself a Christian after being an atheist for years, is not really a Christian because she's too intelligent to believe all that stuff about the virgin birth and the resurrection and the miracles and so on.
So I just now am listening to a discussion between Dawkins and Ali in which he says the same thing and she tries to answer rthat she is indeed a Christian, and he does come around to seeing that she is although of course he cosiders it nonesense and says so.
She's a new Christian and seems to be struggling to say what she actually believes, has to ut it in terms of different planes of perception in which the Christian miracles Dawkins disdains are true but in some kind of different way than we know things to be true normally. This is rather confusing and disturbing. i think it's because she hasn't yet let go of her scientific frame of reference and knows how these things are going to be heard by Dawkins and others so she doesn't yet have either the courage or the certainty to know that she does in fact believe these things in the same way we all believe anything to be true. There is no other way to believe anythingis true. The resurrection is an actual fact, so is the virgin birth, jesus reallyh is the Son of God. God really did put Himself in the womb along with Mary's DNA to make a God Man, Jesus God from all eternity, now also fully Man. And He did really rise from the dead. He died on the Cross and came back to life in the tomb and talked with His disciples after that. that is what you must believe if you are a Christian, and I think Aayann is struggling to recognize that she does believe that, she can't believe thst she believes it yet, or something like that. She doens't think it's really possible to believe that sort of thing literally yet so although she knows she does belive it she has to couch it in some other language or terminology that removes it from the usual category of true things.
Dawkins is of coruse struggling to mjake sense out of her confusing way of talking about it. He does say something I have to agree with, which is that the realityh of God as believed by Christians is far bigger and imore imortant than any story of person al comfort or morality based on the stories and so on. Yes, he's right, ahnd I hnop;e she comes around to recognizing that the Christian miracles are true in the real sense of the word true so that Dawkins can at least know that's what is meant for sure not just by her but by all Christians.
Yes, Richard, the fact that it's comforting or has a high morality doesn't make it true, and Aayaan is struggling with the fact that she can't prove those thihgs true that you ogjvet to for that reason, so she wants to claim truth for them in some other dimension or plane of perception. But the fact is she does beieve them to be true the way we all believe anytihing to be strue. ShJesus really did literally rise from the dead, really did die, really did come backt to life. SE
There is no proof inj the scientific scnece of course because they ese are historical facts and you cant prove historical facts the same way you p;rove scientific or pheyical facts which persist in the wold throughout timje. Historical fact are one time events. THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAVE IS TH EYEWITNESS EVERIDENCE. and tghat is perfectly good evidence. they saw the events that she can't show you. They are written down, they ahve been written down for thousands of years. You are wrong that there is no evidence, it's just that you refuse to acept eyewitness evidence, you insist on imosing your own prejudices on it. You cany it can't be true simly because it seems outlandish to you no matter how many others claim to have actually witnessed it. They are stuid, yuou are in the right. that's all it is, Richard, you refuse to believe the testimony.
Since we can't know these things firsthand the sway scientific facts might be known, we have to believe them and that is what faith is. Fatih is the "evidence of things unseen" because it is how we know these things, actually know them, by believing the terestimony to theml. Jesus even let us have the example of "doubting" Thomas, to show us that the thing was true that he was refusing to believe simly because he had not personally witnessed it. When he was literallly shown it by Jesus then he believed, but Jesus chided him saying those are blessed who belived the terisony. And that's all we have who weren't even there. Thomas was there and had the privilege of being shown the actual fact of Jesus having beein riased from the dead. but we don't have that privilege. What we have is faith in the tertimony of those who saw it, and faith in the Lord Jesus Himself for the promises He gives to save us for eternal life.
