Let them come: New believers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali won’t always have the right words yet

If true, this is an answer to prayer after reading one of her books.

Soli Deo Gloria

There’s an interesting and thoughtful piece by Bethel McGrew on this also. Link below.

She delves a bit into evidentialism and rational conversions (some would say rationalism). She seems to say all intuitive leaps are following Kierkegaard (“irrational leap”), but this evaluation assumes everyone was rationalist before Kierkegaard… which they were not, if you go back a couple centuries.

Sometimes, when people come to faith through a non-rational/non-reasoned dramatic experience, they are doing something much older than both rationalism and existentialism.

But I appreciate the idea that people do not have to come to faith non-rationally. There is no biblical reason to suppose God cannot draw people “cerebrally.” Both reason and intuition are the “heart,” in biblical terms.

I enjoyed her essay. An interesting read: Why you should be a Christian

I wouldn't say evidentialism is rationalism (technically it better fits empiricism and evidential apologetics), and we have had evidentialist apologies since the first century (the testimonia, passages of the Old Testament used in discussions with Jews and God fearers).

I have interacted with the McGrews, who are ardent internalists (a major sticking point in epistemology). What I think she is articulating is a point I have seen her mother make on a few occasions, to wit, there are different types of evidences outside of the formal defenses of the resurrection, including experiences, a Damascene experience would be something that is properly basic (and therefore evidence), but it wouldn't necessarily fit the standard evidentialist model of how things are done.

I’m avoiding “ism,” but I find it useful—in a work in the garage sort of way—to look at the process piece of epistemology as aligning more or less with either the rational process: thinking on purpose in structured way (in reference to evidence that may or may not be empirical) or various non-rational ways: arriving at conviction by intuitive/mysterious/unknown paths.

Sometimes we “just know,” and if we’re honest, we don’t particularly care how we know. Other times, we puzzle it out in a disciplined way. I see them both as important and having their place. Non-rational/intuitive ways seem to take less effort, so we should be surprised if they aren’t overused. “Intellectually lazy” comes to mind. On the other hand, some overuse reason and it becomes a different kind of laziness.

Prov 3:5-6 are really interesting to me, in this regard. People often use it to defend intuitive knowing vs. reasoned knowing. But usually these are people with a high view of inspiration and inerrancy… which really puts the passage in a very different light. Trusting in the Lord would be trusting in what He has certainly revealed—written words. “Your own understanding” is a better fit with listening to your inner voice—“listen to your heart,” as our culture loves to put it. So Prov 3:5-6 doesn’t work as a rationale (irony) for non-rational paths to belief.