RomanJoe wrote:
Christianity is peculiar because it claims that God incarnate appeared at a specific time, place, culture, etc. It seems to invite historical criticism given the fact that its doctrinal stability rests on the historicity of Christ's life and, ultimately, the alleged resurrection of his body.
I'm inclined to agree that if there were decisive evidence against the Resurrection Christians would rationally have to abandon their faith. But that isn't the situation I'm proposing. I'm proposing a situation where the evidence for a contrary hypothesis overtakes the evidence for Christianity without decisively deciding for or against it.
You make a good point that basing one's faith on the shifting grounds of academic research may be dangerous. But it would only be dangerous if you are looking to first and foremost preserve what is familiar to you--i.e. the worldview you inhabit.
Do you really think that it would only be dangerous if you were looking to preserve what is familiar to you? I can't help but wonder if that would only be true for people who aren't really living their faith. (Suppose the same scenario, where the evidence shifts between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam every couple weeks, and think of the consequences of the constant changes you would have to make.)
And to echo one of Stein's points, how do you justify giving primacy to reason in the first place? Not, I hope, by reason, for that would be to assume, rather than prove, that there is nothing higher than reason to which even the justificatory reasoning has to answer.
