I came across this cool list of questions today... thirty-seven questions from atheists toward theists/Christians... with some excellent answers by Rob Bowman.

I especially like the question "What would convince you that you're wrong?"  I've asked this question before to atheist friends of mine, and they've had a hard time answering it.  One guy said, "If a ten-foot-tall angel were to appear to me right now, with flaming sword, and tell me that I'm wrong, then I'd believe it."  Then I pressed him a bit on it, and he admitted that he could still think of some reasons to disbelieve it (it might be a elaborate special-effects hoax, etc).   Atheism turns out to be rather "unfalsifiable."   On the contrary, as Bowman says, just a few simple things would be enough to "falsify" Christianity.  Such as... a plausible explanation for the origin of the resurrection stories, the New Testament documents, and the origin of the Christian church in Jerusalem around 30 AD.

 "...I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations..."

This is an excerpt from Galileo's 1632 letter to the Roman Catholic Church explaining why he would not (at that time) recant from his heliocentric view of the solar system. If you have time, read the whole letter... it's extremely fascinating.  The complete article can be found at http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/galileo.html

I may get time later to post my thoughts about this... here are a few quick thoughts- (1) I think he's right that we ought not to be dogmatic about things that the Bible is not clear about, (2) I think we OUGHT to unflinchingly teach what the Bible CLEARLY teaches about things, even if it's in areas other than "salvation", such as "scientific" or "historical" areas (i.e. I think Galileo is wrong about this), (3) it would be wise also to understand the difference between historical "scientific" reconstructions versus observational/experimental science, and understand the key role of testimony in the former (i.e. do the planets orbit the earth - experimental science... testimony is irrelevant; how long were the first six days of creation - reconstructional science...testimony is extremely relevant), (4) and finally, when one speaks of "beginning", if one means finding an appropriate epistemological basis for one's beliefs, I think it is legitimate to start from the most incontrovertible evidence we know - sense experience/etc.  This allows us to ascertain not only WHETHER or not to believe in Scripture, but also WHICH Scripture to believe in... (today's culture has more 'live options' than Galileo's culture did).  Once the Bible is believed as a repository of truth, it may at times supercede other moments of contrary sense-data... this is a key aspect of "faith."    Yet "blind faith" is irresponsible... what we should have is justified faith - faith based on good solid reasons.

What do you think?  (especially about his whole letter, but also about the brief excerpt that I quoted...)

Here's an interesting quote... comments welcome...

"If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational....We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend."

Charles Hodge, principal of Princeton Theological Seminary between 1851 and 1878] Systematic Theology, 3 vols., reprint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 1:83-84.