Empirical Evidences

[ITS]

Critque Lewis' treatment and use of empirical evidences.

[mark frame]

Critque Lewis' treatment and use of empirical evidences.I learned a great deal from reading through Lewis? book and listening to the tapes. I have never had a philosophy course before so much of this material was new to me. I appreciate the thoroughness of Dr. Lewis? work in showing each of the different approaches to dealing with the empirical data we all face daily. Some base everything on this data, others want to ignore it. Dr. Lewis, in his presentation of Carnell?s approach, gives us a way to use that data to show God to others. Really, when we think about it, isn?t it the capability of this data to show God to be true, the reason He made it?

A criticism of Dr. Lewis? work would apply to the whole work, not just that of the empirical sections. I could have benefited from more practical example of how the use of this approach would look in actual apologetic situations. I guess that will be for me to figure out as I use it in trying to reach non-Christians.

[carl]

I thought Dr. Lewis's use of empirical evidences was excellent. Foremost, he gave the various approaches to empirical evidence (e.g., pure empiricism, rational empiricism) a fair chance. He pointed out the strengths of the approaches and pointed out the weaknesses. This is significant because even though we prepare to enter an apologetic discussion by making use of empirical evidence we also go into it understanding that we may need to incorporate more than that. We reduce the risk of being blindsided by assuming empirical evidence is all that is needed in the discussion.
As Dr. Lewis continued his discussion about the relevance of empirical evidences, the inclusion of signs, wonders, miracles, healings, ...as part of an apologetic discussion became much more meaningful as he conveyed their importance as visible signs of a real God Who is involved in the affairs of mankind. Understanding that these signs (empirical evidences) help illustrate the mercy of the triune God of the Bible and, thereby, help serve as reasons for believing what the Bible says about Him clarifies that a discussion of these matters is fair, relevant, and, at the very least, thought-provoking for many.
Further, his discussion about the order of the world and man's ability to gain understanding of the world through honest observation did an excellent job of showing a relationship between the mind of the One Who created the world and the mind of the creatures who understand and subdue the world.
Overall, I think Dr. Lewis gave a comprehensive treatment of empirical evidence.

[akridgeg]

Dr. Lewis' treatment of empirical evidence was quite thorough. The information allowed the student to form opinions of his own with some critique by the instructor built in. Empirical evidence has some practical uses in the everyday world of the apologist. Many people have to know the facts and they want unequivocal proof. Emipirical data helps to some extent to lead them to a point where they might be able to begin to believe that there is some probability that the God of the Bible exits. There are other mehtods of apologetics I prefer to use, but some empirical evidence is usually required to bring the person to a knowledge of God.


Garvin Akridge


I thought Dr. Lewis's use of empirical evidences was excellent. Foremost, he gave the various approaches to empirical evidence (e.g., pure empiricism, rational empiricism) a fair chance. He pointed out the strengths of the approaches and pointed out the weaknesses. This is significant because even though we prepare to enter an apologetic discussion by making use of empirical evidence we also go into it understanding that we may need to incorporate more than that. We reduce the risk of being blindsided by assuming empirical evidence is all that is needed in the discussion.
As Dr. Lewis continued his discussion about the relevance of empirical evidences, the inclusion of signs, wonders, miracles, healings, ...as part of an apologetic discussion became much more meaningful as he conveyed their importance as visible signs of a real God Who is involved in the affairs of mankind. Understanding that these signs (empirical evidences) help illustrate the mercy of the triune God of the Bible and, thereby, help serve as reasons for believing what the Bible says about Him clarifies that a discussion of these matters is fair, relevant, and, at the very least, thought-provoking for many.
Further, his discussion about the order of the world and man's ability to gain understanding of the world through honest observation did an excellent job of showing a relationship between the mind of the One Who created the world and the mind of the creatures who understand and subdue the world.
Overall, I think Dr. Lewis gave a comprehensive treatment of empirical evidence.

[cmoore]

Before I entered this course, one book that I read was called, “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. The author of this book. Mr. Strobel, was a legal journalist who’s wife suddenly converted to Christianity. He thought that she was going to turn into an undesirable wife, but rather she turned out to be rather pleasant. So he went on a journey to explore Christianity using all of the tools that he would use to find out the truth in criminal cases. He would look at the evidence, empirical evidence.

After reading this book, my faith in the Historical Jesus was strengthened. I knew that Jesus was real, however, the facts solidified my faith even further. At the time, I was unaware of the fact that the evidence presented was empirical evidence. However, during the course, I learned what this type of evidence was.

Dr. Lewis treated and used this type of evidence well. During the last three lectures, in particular, he treated the topics of the authority of the scriptures, Jesus as the Messiah, and the God of the Bible with great respect, and at the same time gave many undeniable evidences for the faith that he holds. This course allowed me to view the defense of my faith in a new light. I still believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures as well as the authority of the Bible. In addition to using the scriptures to defend and witness my faith, I will use empirical evidence. After hearing and learning of this type of evidence, I want to further my studies of this type of evidence.

[J. Afanador]

Critque Lewis' treatment and use of empirical evidences.

Dr. Gordon R. Lewis’ treatment and use of empirical evidences in his book, Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims, and lectures is fair and balanced. Empirical evidences should have a place in our apologetic, but their ability to establish the truth of Christianity should not be overstated. As Lewis has rightly argued, no one approaches “the facts” with total objectivity; and even if one did, reasoning from observable, physical evidences can only lead to tentative, limited conclusions. At best empirical data can help support only a part of Christianity’s truth claims. Along with empirical verification, therefore, our apologetic should incorporate other tests for Christianity’s truth, such as logical consistency and existential viability.

[J. Afanador]

A criticism of Dr. Lewis? work would apply to the whole work, not just that of the empirical sections. I could have benefited from more practical example of how the use of this approach would look in actual apologetic situations. I guess that will be for me to figure out as I use it in trying to reach non-Christians.

Hi Mark, although a large thrust of Lewis’ lectures (and book) is focused on presenting the various approaches to apologetics, he does attempt to demonstrate how the particular apologetic approach under discussion (e.g., pure empiricism, rational empiricism, rationalism, biblical authoritarianism, Christian mysticism, and hypothetical verification) might play out with a fictitious character; in this case he uses a former Christian-turned-skeptic named "Jane." (See, for e.g., Lecture 11, 11 minutes into the lecture.) Also, his book, Testing Christianity’s Truth-Claims, provides a section titled the ‘Invisible Gardener’ which illustrates this very thing for the various apologetic approaches presented.