

I will answer this as I find time.


Notice what I said about this book.  I called it "Easy reading."  The reason I
dropped philosphy as my major was because I ran into too many pharisaical
Simon's.  I don't know how many walking encyclopedia's I ran across in
philosphy classes.  The problem isn't in knowing sooooo much more than your
average lay person, the problem comes when you become puffed up about it. 
Schaeffer is just fine for the average lay person.  That was who he was
writting to.  I suppose that you would have criticised John that his gospel was
to simple.  I've talked with Schaeffer one on one.  I've been in lectures with
the man when he was being drilled by philosphy students and prof's from secular
as well as Christian universities. (ND alone would fill both those catagories) 
His answers were enough that the prof's themselves often were taken back and
caused to re-think what their question was.  I saw this time and time again at
different open forums.  So yes, Schaeffers books are by in large, well,
simplistic.  It certainly isn't grad level reading.  But we must get off our
high horses when it comes to recommended reading.  Do you seriously think most
people would get through the first chapter of Wittgenstein?  I may have more to
say about this secular scientist at another time.

Also, one must finally get beyond the doubt caused by *insistent*
inquisitiveness.  One cannot live his life constantly from a cartisian doubt
base.  

Look, the Christian wholeheartedly supports genuine rationality.  But we must
add a qualification to give this balance.  Christianity is second to none in
keeping reason in its place.  We never know the value of a thing until we know
its limits.  Put unlimited value on something and in the end you will exhaust
it of all value!

THis is why Xianity is thoroughly rational but not the least bit rationalistic.
 It also explains the curious fact that it is rationalism, and not Christian
faith, which leads to irrationality.  If we forget the limits of a thing, we
fly in the face of reality and condem ourselves to learn the simple ironic
lesson of life: 

"More without limits is less;  less with limits is more."  

Or as I have so often stated it, freedom without form soon becomes form w/o
freedom.

Let's put it another way.  The rationality of faith is implacably opposed to
absurdity but has no quarrel with mystery. Think about that.  It can tell the
difference between the two if you will let it.  Christianity's contention with
rationalism is not that it has too much reason in it, but that it has very
little else.  When a Christian comes to faith his understanding and his trust
go hand in hand, but as he continues in faith his trust may sometimes be called
to go on by itself without his understanding.

This is where the principle of suspended judgment applies.  At such time if the
Christian faith is to be itself and let God be God, it must suspend judgment
and say, "Father I do not understand you but I trust you."  Now don't read all
your objections of me into that statement.  I wasn't saying I do not understand
you at all, but I trust you anyway." It means that "I do not understand You *in
this situation* but I do understand *why I trust You* anyway"  Therefore I can
trust that you understand even though I do not. The former is a mystery
unrelieved by rationality and indistinguishable from absurdity.  The latter is
a statement of rationality of faith walking hand in hand with the mystery of
Faith.  So.... the principle of suspended judgment is not irrational.  It is
not a leap of faith but a walk of faith.  As believers we cannot always know
why, but we canalways know why we trust God who knows why and this makes all
the difference.

Now, there is one obvious snag to all this and this is where I have parted
company with philosophy- what is eminently reasonable in theory is a rather bit
more difficult in practice.  In practice the pressure of mystery acts on faith
like the insistent "whying" of a 3 year old.  It isn't just that we would like
to know what we do not know but that we feel we *must* know what we cannot
know.  The one produces frustration because curiosity is denied; the other
leads to genuine anguish.  More specifically the poorer our understanding is in
coming to faith the more necessary it will be to understand everything after
coming to faith.  If we do not know why we trust God, then we will always need
to know exactly what God is doing in order to trust him.  Failing to grasp
that, we may not be able to trust him, for anything we do not understand may
count decisevely against what we are able to trust.  

If, on the other hand, we do know why we trust God, we will be able to trust
him in situations where we do not understand what He is doing. (Too many Xian
leaders teach as if the Christian had a window in the back of his head which
allows for understanding at every foot fall)  For what God is doing may be
ambiguous, but it will not be inherently contradictory!  It may be mystery to
us, but mystery is only inscrutable; what would be insufferable is absurdity.
And that my friend, was the conclusion of Nietzche both in theory and in
practice.   