Theologywebbers: Travelers or Balconeers

[Adrift]

In one of his old Defenders podcasts, William Lane Craig notes a really interesting parallel that I think is applicable in many ways to the people on this forum.
British theologian JI Packer made a distinction between two types of people who have an interest in God. Some, he said, are like travelers along life's dusty roads, on a journey to a destination, and the others are like onlookers sitting on the balconies of their houses along that road.

The people on the balconies take interest in the conversations of the travelers as they're discussing how to make their way, and the balconeers are able to talk to and argue with the travelers. But the big difference between the two is that the travelers are the ones who are actually making the journey they're discussing, while the balconeers interest is purely theoretical because they're not going anywhere, they're not existentially involved.

For those who are interested in God, the traveler is, "really trying to find out whether God exists." And, "Will approach the question of God's existence with deep humility. He’ll be eager to find evidences of God's being. He's searching for God. He wants to discover whether God exists or not. He’s like a person who was looking for a lost loved one and will be eager to find any evidence of that loved ones presence. Now that's not to say he's going to become gullible and just jump at straws, but it is to say that the travelers approach to the existence of God will involve an openness and a sincerity to finding him that balconeers often do not." And for that reason Balconeers are often indifferent or hostile to God. They're not really interested in 'finding' God at the end of their search.

As an example of this, Craig quotes the philosopher Thomas Nagel, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people i know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don't believe in God and naturally hope that i'm right in my belief. It's that i hope there is no God. I don't want there to be a God. I don't want a universe like that.”

"Now this kind of person will approach the arguments for God's existence with a totally different attitude from that of a traveler. Rather than looking for God he will be looking for loopholes. Rather than accept the arguments conclusion, he will deny any cost, one of the premises rather than deny the conclusion, no matter how implausible the denial of that premise might be.

I find that each one of us has inside of us a kind of skeptical dial that we can turn way up high when it comes to conclusions that we don't like, and we dial it way down low when it comes to our own philosophy and our own views, and the hypocrisy of many balconeers is that when it comes to God's existence they dial that skeptical dial up to a degree that would be totally unacceptable to them in any other area of life. If they were to apply the same sort of skepticism to ordinary life that they apply to arguments for the existence of God they would scarcely be able to function.

For balconeers arguments for God's existence are at best intellectual games. They don't really hope to or expect to find God at the end of the argument, but obviously if god exists then we can’t play intellectual games with God. Rather we have to approach God with a sincerity and a humility and deep reverence, i think, if we are seekers after truth. If we are travelers along life's way, then we will approach the arguments for God's existence sympathetically. Therefore I think that the so-called skeptical inquirer is really an oxymoron. Someone who is a genuine inquirer is not skeptical at all. He wants to find the conclusion, find the truth. So when i hear someone who says that they’re a skeptic or they’re a skeptical inquirer i think that tells me already something about where their heart is.

If we’re willing to hope to find God then we must approach these questions with an openness and a sincerity to really finding God at the end of the argument, and not try to deny at any cost his existence. So plausibility, as i say, raises these issues of the heart and sometimes by presenting an argument for God's existence you will actually expose the heart condition of the person with whom you're talking, because you will see that they will, rather than admit the conclusion of the argument, adopt positions that are totally implausible. They will pay that price rather than believe in God, and if that is the case then you have done your job as a Christian apologist, as a defender of the faith. You’ve shown that person, not only the cost that it’s going to be to them intellectually to deny God's existence, but you also expose the condition of their heart as someone who's not really open and ready for God at all." - WLC

Too Long; Didn't Read? Do you post here because it helps you get some place? Or are you posting from the sidelines because you enjoy the sound of your own voice?

Anyhow, that portion of the podcast really blessed me and made me think, and it reminded me a lot of the discussions on this forum, and the types of people who post here and elsewhere, and I just wanted to share that with some of my fellow travelers.

[fm93]

When I first saw the thread title, I read it as "Baconeers" and got excited.

[Xru]

There is a third category . . . a bunch or anarchist smoking blow and getting drunk while stumbling down a dusty road looking for trouble.

[Adrift]

There is a third category . . . a bunch or anarchist smoking blow and getting drunk while stumbling down a dusty road looking for trouble.

Smoking blow or blowing smoke? I thought you snorted blow? Anyways, those types of folks might have left the balcony for a second, but they ain't really going anywhere.

[37818]

I think it is fair to say, some know where they are going the others do not.

[theblueprint_Ni]

It's hard to say where people are in their hearts when they come here or what their goal is in participating. Reasons will vary and even change from time to time. I'd like to think that I have noble reasons for coming here, but I doubt they always are. At the very least, it can be a constructive hobby and a decent way to pass the time when you have the leisure to do it. In any case, unless its made very obvious that someone spends most of their waking hours posting anonymously in an online forum, I don't know how much we can really discern about people in a place like this. Its hard enough to know the lives of people in our own churches, let alone how members of this community might be pursuing the gospel and conducting themselves in faith.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that some might take this more seriously than others because it doesn't force representation in reality. The consequences for our actions are few and small, so even if you have someone who is really strong Christian who reads their Bibles, loves their family, serves the Church, and faithfully testifies to Christ in the workplace, we wouldn't know anything about that and it wouldn't weigh in to our judgments when we disagree with their statements. On the flip side, you can have a faithless Christian who never prays, doesn't read their Bibles as the milk of God's word, and laden with secret sins, and neither would that weigh into our judgments when they make a good case for their views. We could just as easily condemn the just and vindicate the wicked, and we wouldn't know any different. Knowing a person can give a whole lot more insight into what their saying. Why am I still talking? This was supposed to be like two sentences.

[Adrift]

I agree with you to an extant, but the OP is primarily in reference to exchanges with non-theists while engaged in Apologetics. Craig here is talking about a certain type of non-theist and anti-theist who unreasonably denies certain premises in arguments related to topics like the nature of morality, the origins of the universe, the historicity of Jesus... etc. I don't see you in the Apologetic sections of the forum that much, so maybe you're just unfamiliar with the non-theists interaction with theists there, but there really is a sense that many are arguing simply to argue. It really is just a game for some people. They're not really after truth, they're after a 20 minute diversion from work. For some skeptics, debating a theist is a better waste of time than doing a crossword. You even see this in a lot of question and answer sessions in public debates where skeptics in the audience will shout out something that's just... you know... irrelevant, or some sort of semantic game, and the apologist in the debate sort of rolls his eyes because he's forced to take time away from the main topic he came to debate to deal with a question that the skeptic could have answered himself if he wasn't treating the exchange like a game of chess instead of a search for truth.

For the Christians who come to this forum and participate in light conversation about theology, they're already on the road. And even if its just a simple pass time or hobby to talk to other Christians, I think iron is still sharpening iron. For some its an encouragement to talk to like minded believers, and for others debating skeptics often deepens their own understanding of their faith by presenting questions they might never have thought to ask themselves.

Are non-theists and skeptical individuals who come to this forum always on the balcony? I don't think so, I think there a few out there who are legitimately looking for the truth as well, and so they too are on the road, but a large number of skeptics I've read on this forum are not really interested in anything like that. Are there self-proclaimed Christians sitting on the balconies instead of walking the road? Maybe so.

[Brown Cat]

Dang. Now I've got my metaphors all mixed up. I think it's possible to be sitting in the balcony (i.e. cheap seats, in my case ) in one sense and also to be walking the road in another.

Mostly I keep watching the conversations and if an opportunity presents itself to post something that I think may be helpful, I'll do it.

[Xru]

I guess I should have read the OP before jumping in;)

Most of the members who post seem to have a very strong position as either Christian, agnostic and atheist. Who knows about the lurkers . . . . are they the balconeers?

I seldom have seen someone actually change a position here on TWeb, or just ask questions as a way of inquiry to clarify their own beliefs; or honestly test whether what they intellectually understand can be fit into a Biblical model.

One of the extremes are some that have so hardened there position . . . like phank in NS301, an atheist . . . that if irrefutable evidence were to hit him in the head that ALL that is written in the NT is true he would not believe it.

On the other hand there are probably people like that in Christian's on Tweb.

Then there are people like Doug . . . who I used to think was reasonable but have come to think that he is just grinding his atheist/agnostic ax like so many others on this site.

On the Christian side . . . it's harder for me to tell. Especially among the YEC set there are probably some who would refuse to abandon Christianity even if everything a Christian cherishes were contradicted.

Sometimes I wonder . . . what I would do if irrefutable evidence came to light that completely contradicted the ministry of Jesus like the discovery of a grave site . . . anyway you get the idea.

Or a tablet with a signed statement by Jesus that it was all a joke and ha ha . . . etc.

Would I be a Christian still . . . well . . . not in the sense that I am know at least. I might even become Jewish.

When I read some of the dialogues of some of the posts here . . . I clearly get the impression that there is no seeking going on especially between atheist, agnostic vs. Christians. This can plainly be seen in posts by Burt, and that atheist bunch. In my opinion they are here just for the fun of it and to be part of the "opposition" to religion in general and especially to Christianity. There is no seeking to understand at all. It is pure Troll. This is the bunch that I reserve my wrath for.

I'd love to see an honest accounting of why all Twebbers comment on TWeb but I think that is a wish that I'll never see fulfilled . . . and it will only be in Heaven that I will truly understand the . . . well, the really bizarre positions I've seen taken here on Tweb. I only hope that the lurkers who just observe are influenced to some degree in their own journeys down the right path and that some find Christ on the way.

[Jedidiah]

This is an interesting idea. I have to admit that I am theoretically willing to change my beliefs, but in fact it would be extremely unlikely. Why?

I came to Christianity, not from atheism, but from agnosticism. I did consider myself an atheist for a few years, but finally decided that to believe there is no god was pretty dumb. How could I ever know that.

I came late to faith in Christ. I was 33 or 34 when I finally was convinced. One problem I had was I always tried to solve the question of yea or nay, from a scientific perspective. Once I realized that science really could not answer that question I began to try to determine what "system" would best explain what I saw everyday in life. The Bible finally won out. It was completely self consistent (only after I opened my mind to seeing what it said, as opposed to trying to force my own viewpoint onto it) and fully fit into the way things are in "real life."

I still have a desire to learn and understand more, but there is little or no chance of any major change in my beliefs - small aha moments, but no serious change. I can not even imagine any sort of "evidence" that could change my mind.

So, I suppose I am a balconeer.

[Adrift]

This is an interesting idea. I have to admit that I am theoretically willing to change my beliefs, but in fact it would be extremely unlikely. Why?

I came to Christianity, not from atheism, but from agnosticism. I did consider myself an atheist for a few years, but finally decided that to believe there is no god was pretty dumb. How could I ever know that.

I came late to faith in Christ. I was 33 or 34 when I finally was convinced. One problem I had was I always tried to solve the question of yea or nay, from a scientific perspective. Once I realized that science really could not answer that question I began to try to determine what "system" would best explain what I saw everyday in life. The Bible finally won out. It was completely self consistent (only after I opened my mind to seeing what it said, as opposed to trying to force my own viewpoint onto it) and fully fit into the way things are in "real life."

I still have a desire to learn and understand more, but there is little or no chance of any major change in my beliefs - small aha moments, but no serious change. I can not even imagine any sort of "evidence" that could change my mind.

So, I suppose I am a balconeer.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say you're most definitely a traveler (and keep in mind that, like almost all analogies, this eventually breaks down at some point). Apparently, J.I. Packer's analogy in the book "Knowing God" refers to a traveler who is not simply stuck in a permanent state of searching, but who's actively living the faith he's discussing.

This blog post sums Packer's analogy up pretty well I think,

The balconeer might sit in this tower, read theological musings, observe God and his workings, but have no active participation. The balconeer knows of God, but likely doesn't know God.

The traveler, on the other hand, is down on the road. The traveler is familiar with the same theological insights. However, he/she is actually interacting with the learned theology in their daily lives.

As you can imagine, the balconeer is likely to become "high and mighty", and legalistic, where the traveler, through the bumps of life, is likely to have the more genuine relationship with God, as he/she is actually on the road traveling with their faith.

WLC just takes this one step further and applies the analogy of the balconeer to a certain type of skeptic (rather than maybe legalistic Christians), who are always asking questions, but never desiring answers; who like to talk the talk, but are less interested in walking the walk. Talking theology is just an intellectual exercise, but not really applicable to their life journey.

[Kenny]

I would consider myself a traveler. But that doesn’t always involve taking arguments for or against God (or even for or against various theological positions that I hold) as something other than an intellectual game. Sometimes it does. Often for me it does (and has). But at other times, I’m just playing an intellectual game that I happen to enjoy, but which is unlikely to result in my actually changing my position. I think that’s okay. One can’t really live a stable life if one’s deepest convictions are always up for grabs. To demand that of people as an intellectual virtue is psychologically unrealistic (or, for those few who I know for whom it is psychologically realistic, there is a kind of neurosis that often accompanies it). And even when one is just “playing the game” (as it were) there is still virtue in being engaged in the life of the mind. There is something good about reflecting on one's convictions even when they are not really up for grabs. Furthermore, often when I’m just playing the game, it leads to my coming to question some of my convictions more seriously (I find, for example, that reflection on the problem of evil is like that for me – sometimes I’m just playing a game; other times, it is a real existential issue for me).

[theblueprint_Ni]

I agree with you to an extant, but the OP is primarily in reference to exchanges with non-theists while engaged in Apologetics. Craig here is talking about a certain type of non-theist and anti-theist who unreasonably denies certain premises in arguments related to topics like the nature of morality, the origins of the universe, the historicity of Jesus... etc. I don't see you in the Apologetic sections of the forum that much, so maybe you're just unfamiliar with the non-theists interaction with theists there, but there really is a sense that many are arguing simply to argue. It really is just a game for some people. They're not really after truth, they're after a 20 minute diversion from work. For some skeptics, debating a theist is a better waste of time than doing a crossword. You even see this in a lot of question and answer sessions in public debates where skeptics in the audience will shout out something that's just... you know... irrelevant, or some sort of semantic game, and the apologist in the debate sort of rolls his eyes because he's forced to take time away from the main topic he came to debate to deal with a question that the skeptic could have answered himself if he wasn't treating the exchange like a game of chess instead of a search for truth.

For the Christians who come to this forum and participate in light conversation about theology, they're already on the road. And even if its just a simple pass time or hobby to talk to other Christians, I think iron is still sharpening iron. For some its an encouragement to talk to like minded believers, and for others debating skeptics often deepens their own understanding of their faith by presenting questions they might never have thought to ask themselves.

Are non-theists and skeptical individuals who come to this forum always on the balcony? I don't think so, I think there a few out there who are legitimately looking for the truth as well, and so they too are on the road, but a large number of skeptics I've read on this forum are not really interested in anything like that. Are there self-proclaimed Christians sitting on the balconies instead of walking the road? Maybe so.

Ah, well, that does change things a little bit. But like I said before, not only is TWeb an online forum, but its completely anonymous. No one can be too serious unless they really want to put their own person out there. Its true that there can be some honest seekers who wouldn't go about it any other way because they might recoil at real human interaction and would rather take their time in reading and responding instead of real-time dynamic dialogue, but that's the rare exception I'm sure.

This is a leisurely place which makes no distinction between layman and scholar, wise and fool, and with hardly more than a table talk atmosphere. We really can't expect to get into a truly profitable debate unless some serious rules were laid out ahead of time and a moderator rigorously enforced a respectable, progressive (non-political/theological usage) dialogue. I'm not against trying to have a meaningful debate at TWeb, I'm just saying we can't have our expectations set very high when we choose to engage someone, especially for apologetic reasons.

I haven't visited the apologetics forum so I can't say much about that. Although I can say that in my experience here, unless someone really understands you and already has some respect for your beliefs, it takes far too long to define your terms and qualify your statements while demanding respect for your position that it become much more of a chore and a waste of time. And it goes both ways, and we can all be guilty of not doing the above. If its too much trouble, then just as leisurely as I entered the discussion I will just as leisurely bow out, because that's the kind of place this is. It's very hard to have something very respectable when the majority of interactions are overwhelmingly self-governed and are mostly reliant on ones personal ethic in anonymous discussion.

[nightbringer]

I would consider myself a traveler. But that doesn’t always involve taking arguments for or against God (or even for or against various theological positions that I hold) as something other than an intellectual game. Sometimes it does. Often for me it does (and has). But at other times, I’m just playing an intellectual game that I happen to enjoy, but which is unlikely to result in my actually changing my position. I think that’s okay. One can’t really live a stable life if one’s deepest convictions are always up for grabs. To demand that of people as an intellectual virtue is psychologically unrealistic (or, for those few who I know for whom it is psychologically realistic, there is a kind of neurosis that often accompanies it). And even when one is just “playing the game” (as it were) there is still virtue in being engaged in the life of the mind. There is something good about reflecting on one's convictions even when they are not really up for grabs. Furthermore, often when I’m just playing the game, it leads to my coming to question some of my convictions more seriously (I find, for example, that reflection on the problem of evil is like that for me – sometimes I’m just playing a game; other times, it is a real existential issue for me).

This is me. I love the gospel. I think it's the most beautiful thing I've ever heard. I just wish I'd live in the good of it more than worry about whether it's true. I'm no disinterested balconeer. But I'd like to be more firmly on the road from time to time.

[Brown Cat]

This is me. I love the gospel. I think it's the most beautiful thing I've ever heard. I just wish I'd live in the good of it more than worry about whether it's true. I'm no disinterested balconeer. But I'd like to be more firmly on the road from time to time.

Amen to loving the Gospel and the Lord of the Gospel.

What do you mean by "firmly on the road"? I'm not quite sure what you meant by that.

My first impression was that maybe you'd like to do more that is gospel outreach related. If that is the case, I agree with you. But some of us are more limited in others in that way, and I for one don't get to "travel" as much as I'd like. But we've got to do the best we can with what we have been given.