So much for peace…I’m afraid that the upcoming move to Scotland has rather snowed us under these last couple weeks. So now I’ll be putting up quite a barrage of posts that have been swimming around in my head, and I haven’t had the chance to put up.
First, a quick response to David Morris's comment about my "Epistemological Epiphany." I have a problem with replying to comments immediately, and so eventually I have to reply in a whole new post, because I figure that no one would ever look down to the old post to find the comment by now.
David suggested that Swinburne's assessment really was accurate, because, if the chips were down, if God asked me which opinion I believed, my own or Dr. Leithart's, I would say, "Dr. Leithart's," since I thought it was more likely to be true. But I really don't think so.
I think (at least, on a number of important issues--say, holiness, or political theology) I would doggedly hold to my own belief, even if on an objective assessment, I thought it more likely on balance that Dr. Leithart was correct, since he was so much more knowledgeable (assuming such an objective assessment were even possible). Now, perhaps I am alone in this. Perhaps I have not discovered an epistemological epiphany, but rather merely that I am an epistemological oddity, thoroughly seduced by Kierkegaard.
But, in any case, my main point is the same as the conclusion David comes to--even though Swinburne's analysis may be correct in certain cases, it is scarcely the whole picture and is of very limited usefulness.