All apologies, part 2

I have written before that I am not a big fan of apologetics, of trying to "prove" God exists. Apparently I am not the only one. Jacob writes a good post about the same subject. Here is an exerpt:

One significant problem is that followers of Jesus implicitly set modern scientific practice (testing words/concepts against empirical evidence) as the standard the Bible and its Words must pass before its validity is affirmed. Let me say this differently: testing the Word against empirics is akin to making God into a hypothesis. The result is that God and the Christian faith are framed as either “true” or “false” propositions that are ultimately affirmed or denied on the basis of empirical evidence.

...

In other words, religious truth is of a different order. Saying that “God is love,” for instance, is not about finding and testing “God” and “love” against the empirical record. That’s absurd.

I recommend reading the whole post. Thanks, Jacob!