I appreciate John Bice's willingness to interact with the issues I raised in my letter ("Faith needs reason, not blind beliefs" SN 7/5). Yet in his most recent article ("Religion is 'blind faith;' anyone could have written Bible storybook" SN 7/21) he seems to be unwilling to address the fatal flaws and inherent contradictions that exist in the arguments he advances.

Space prohibits me from offering a detailed response; however, I would like to briefly address a few of the more egregious errors found in his article. First, Bice claims that a reasoned faith is "a contradiction" and "oxymoronic" based upon the definitions offered at dictionary.com.

However, even a cursory look at the site's multiple definitions of faith shows that conclusion to be unwarranted. When I use the term "reasoned faith," I am referring to the confident belief in the truthfulness of a set of beliefs that is predicated upon the weight of sound argument or evidence. To say that the semantic range of the term "faith" does not permit such a usage is at best disingenuous, and at worst deliberately misleading.

Second, Bice appeals to authorities such as the Jesus Seminar, Elaine Pagels and others who call into question the core tenets of the Christian faith. Yet calling on such witnesses is ineffectual without a careful examination of their methodologies and argumentation. It is not enough to simply say "so-and-so experts believe this," as if this fact alone settles the matter (unless of course, one is inclined to blindly put one's faith in such individuals).

Furthermore, adequate responses have been put forward that address and refute the accusations these individuals have advanced against Christianity. I would again urge Bice to interact with such resources.

Finally, Bice uses the adage made popular by Carl Sagan that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While I would in general agree with such a sentiment (with a few qualifications), Bice ought to recognize the limitations of this statement.

One's views as to what might qualify as "extraordinary evidence" can be highly subjective and often used as a smokescreen to deny credible and reasonable evidence, particularly for determining the validity of historical events.

I would appeal to Bice to consider that, for all the time and effort he puts into writing about the subject of faith (and Christianity in particular, it seems), it might benefit him to actually engage in dialogue with those who can offer a credible, reasoned defense of the Christian faith. Who knows, he might well find the experience remarkable, perhaps even "extraordinary."

Chuck Wynn
mathematics senior