Tags
apologetics, church, God, jesus, real life church, son of God, theology
This past week I began a 3-week class at RLC called “Ask Anything.” It’s a Q&A format centered on whatever people want to talk about, but each week I’ll tackle one of the “big questions” lots of people seem to be asking. I’ll post my reflections on those questions here on the blog each week. We started with a question that seems foundational to many: How do we know God exists?
First we have to acknowledge that we don’t know for sure that God exists, any more than we know for sure that he doesn’t. Absolute certainty about whether God exists or not is impossible.
Some say God doesn’t exist because God’s existence can’t be proven “scientifically.” But if anything like what we mean by the word “god” does exist, there is no way science could answer the question one way or another. Others might say that God has to exist because we’ve experienced him; but there is no way to know for sure that our experience matches the reality we’re claiming is behind it.
It is impossible for us to find a place or perspective from where we can look down and determine God’s existence either way. This would only be possible if God were below us, which would make him something other than God.
Instead of certainty, we are dealing with probability. Those who affirm or deny God’s existence are looking at the world, gathering information, and making an educated guess about the best explanation for what they see. Some think the world is best explained by the existence of a God. Others think the opposite. But neither position is inherently more logical, and both involve faith – a risky commitment we each have to make given our limited knowledge and perspective.
Within this, there are many reasons I think it more likely that God exists than that he doesn’t:
Design – When I consider the brilliant and complex design of our world, I believe it makes most sense to believe in an intelligent designer. (BTW, this is different from the specific position in modern scientific debates called “Intelligent Design”.)
First cause / Final explanation – If you continually ask the question Why? or How? of our world (like a 2-year old), eventually you must answer either ‘God’ or ‘That’s just the way things are.’ I think it is probable that God is the first cause, rather than mere chance.
Moral Conviction – While it is certainly true that morality differs among different cultures, there is always some sort of moral expectations among human beings. Something is seen as right (or commendable) and something is seen as wrong (or punishable). I think that ‘moral law’ implies a ‘moral lawgiver’ (even if I don’t think those terms best describe God or what God asks of us).
Spirituality – Throughout history, the majority of human persons and societies have sought some form of spiritual or transcendent experience. Either 99% of human beings are stupid and/or deceived and/or not ‘scientific’ enough to believe that science can and must explain everything, or there is some reality beyond us that calls out to us.
Beauty and goodness – Much is made of the problem of evil and suffering, but I think the opposite question is equally powerful and poses a problem for those who deny God’s existence: Why is there so much beauty and goodness in the world? How do you explain the way we feel when we stand on top of a mountain, or what we experience in authentic friendship or romance, or when people selflessly sacrifice for others? Of course there are many possible explanations, but I think the one with God in it seems most likely.
Jesus’ resurrection – Most importantly, I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and this would not be possible if God didn’t exist. I believe that it can be shown historically that, as wacky as it sounds, God raised Jesus from the dead; this event is unexplainable apart from the reality of God.
Personal Experience – I must also add that I believe in God because I believe that I have come to know him personally. God is not just an idea to me; he is a friend. I have had experiences in my life that I believe are best explained by the reality of a transcendent personal being. I can also testify to the transformation of my character; I have become something other – something better – because I have walked with Jesus. I have no desire to prove this last bit logically or scientifically; I simply offer it as what it is – personal testimony.
We should note that the Bible never tries to prove God’s existence to us. The Bible simply assumes we’ll believe in some form or idea of god or gods, and it tells us a story of the One it claims to be the True God. It ignores the question, ‘Is there a God?’ in favor of the question, ‘What is God really like?’ The difference between our world and theirs is that we can believe in, for instance, the value and authority of democracy or individual liberty (freedom), and yet separate these beliefs from any talk of ‘God.’ Biblically, these things simply are our gods, and we are all idolaters. In other words, from a biblical perspective, idolatry is much more interesting than atheism, because atheism is simply a disguised form of idolatry (since all people give allegiance to something, even if only self or reason).
Michael DeFazio said:
If this was too long, let me know. I may break up the next few into shorter segments if it would help.
Matt Steele said:
“I find it highly unlikely that God exists… However, I find it utterly impossible that I could have the capacity to come to that conclusion without His influence.”
Clayton said:
It is a provocative question. You mentioned that the Bible doesn’t spend time trying to prove His (Gods) existence which is profound in it self, He is… and thats that. I have found his “declaration” of existence in so many subtle passages we skim over daily in his word. For instance if you simply look at the genealogy from Adam to Noah. When you look at the meaning of the roots of the names you will see spelled out Gods plan for salvation. You can check it out yourself, but I will run it down quickly to show how cool it is. Adam- Man (easy) Seth- Appointed, Enosh- Mortal, Kenan- Sorrow, Mahalalel- The Blessed God, Jared- Shall come down, Enoch- Teaching, Methuselah- His death shall bring, Lamech- the despairing, Noah- Rest, or comfort. When you put it together you have something pretty remarkable. Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow, (but) the blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the ) despairing, REST. The Bible is filled with these hints at his ultimate power. One I just looked at was in numbers where when reading it seems laborious to read the census of the nation of Israel, but if you find out how they set up camp and how they followed the letter of the law, the shape they (possibly unknowingly) made from an aerial view is provacative, it is a cross.
Debie said:
Thanks Michael:
I missed your class so I’m glad you blogged, and I enjoy reading what you have to say. Awesome response!
Clayton:
Thanks for the cool info. I love it.
The Bible is so amazing!!!! How could you not know it’s God’s word?
-debie
Philly Endiointmente said:
http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=125
Philly Endiointmente said:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html
Philly Endiointmente said:
“How do you explain the way we feel when we stand on top of a mountain, or what we experience in authentic friendship or romance, or when people selflessly sacrifice for others?”
Read some neuroscience.
Philly Endiointmente said:
“Throughout history, the majority of human persons and societies have sought some form of spiritual or transcendent experience. Either 99% of human beings are stupid and/or deceived and/or not ’scientific’ enough to believe that science can and must explain everything, or there is some reality beyond us that calls out to us.”
Or, read some neuroscience.
Philly Endiointmente said:
“When I consider the brilliant and complex design of our world, I believe it makes most sense to believe in an intelligent designer. (BTW, this is different from the specific position in modern scientific debates called “Intelligent Design”.)”
How is it different?
Philly Endiointmente said:
“I must also add that I believe in God because I believe that I have come to know him personally. God is not just an idea to me; he is a friend. I have had experiences in my life that I believe are best explained by the reality of a transcendent personal being. I can also testify to the transformation of my character; I have become something other – something better – because I have walked with Jesus. I have no desire to prove this last bit logically or scientifically; I simply offer it as what it is – personal testimony.”
Most religious people–regardless of their religion–and non-religious people can offer personal testimonies based on experiences (spiritual, mental, emotional or otherwise) that they believe validates their convictions. This argument is completely irrelevant.
Philly Endiointmente said:
“If you continually ask the question Why? or How? of our world (like a 2-year old), eventually you must answer either ‘God’ or ‘That’s just the way things are.’ I think it is probable that God is the first cause, rather than mere chance.”
On what basis do you stake this claim for probability? And if evolution is random, what is “mere” about chance?
Michael DeFazio said:
Are you trying to fill my “recent comment” section or have you repented from extra long comments?
All of your questions/rebuttals are based on a rationalistic reductionism, and they are taking me to be claiming more than I am. Okay, let’s read neuroscience, but that still begs the question of why there is anything for neuroscience to make sense of. Neuroscience also “explains” why I love my wife (and you yours) but it doesn’t exhaust my love for my wife. All neuroscience can do is give a certain kind of language to a certain kind of experience. Why imply that the experience is collapsable into the language, which you seem to be doing (unless I once again misunderstand you)?
For the specific “Intelligent Design” stuff (as opposed to the general idea of an intelligent designer, read Ted Peters’ Can I Believe in God and Evolution?. Or you should be able to wikipedia it.
My “personal testimony” point isn’t irrelevant. It is by no means conclusive, but it isn’t irrelevant. Once again, I’m not trying to offer a rationally defensible air tight case that God exists; I’m offering the reasons why I choose to believe in him.
Last comment… On the basis of all the other things I mention. Taken as a whole, when I look at all that I am able to see and think through all that I have so far learned and consider all that I’ve experienced (albeit through all sorts of lenses), it seems to me more likely. (And the fact that you pick on “mere,” as if me including it has significance one way or another, makes me think you’re just having fun.)
Are you asking me foundationalist questions because I asked them of you? If so, touche.
Philly Endiointmente said:
My responses were not rationalistic or reductionistic. What I am pointing out is that there are natural explanations for all of the phenomena you are describing. Any urge to posit that there is something “more” to these phenomena is a poetic urge, for which there is also a natural explanation. My point is not that there isn’t possibly something “more” to these phenomena, but that suggestion that these phenomena tend to indicate a reality beyond our natural world is false. That reality beyond may be ontologically real. (If it is, that does not mean our representations of it are real.) But none of the phenomena you cite require any further explanation than a scientific one. Any further claim about their significance is gratuitous and completely imaginative. There is nothing wrong with imagination. And that they are imagined does not mean they are not real. But the point is, they hardly count as justifications for belief.
An honest response to “How do I know God exists?” is: I don’t. I just like to believe God does, either because I have been conditioned from an early age to believe so, or because it offers me comfort I refuse to live without.
Philly Endiointmente said:
Your “moral conviction” argument also falls flat. Human beings may have many cultures and languages, but we are one species, evolved from a common ancestor. Our capacity to operate within what we call a “moral universe” is something, again, that has a neuroscientific, physiological explanation. Any projection of that physiological fact (which manifests itself in concretion) onto some ontological plane is, once again, an imaginative endeavor. In other words, the existence of the concepts of “good” and “evil” in human cultures is not sufficient to establish the existence of a moral ontology.
Michael DeFazio said:
Wrong, my friend! You can’t offer any reason to trust the “natural explanation” rather than or more than the “poetic urge”. That’s the prior decision you’ve made that has no grounds except this: that you simply like that kind of explanation. You just like to believe that natural explanations suffice, either because you have been conditioned from an early age (or late; it doesn’t really matter) to believe so, or because it offers you comfort you refuse to live without.
And that is rationalism.
Philly Endiointmente said:
Michael,
You are very confused, and apparently ignorant.
And you don’t know what rationalism means.
Irritable said:
I would suggest that you both have reasons for thinking as you do that are contingent on a host of factors, including (but not limited to) genetics, social conditioning, life experiences, what you had for breakfast, and how many (and what kind of) drugs you might have done in your lifetime.
So do I, for that matter, though I’d prefer we not get specific about that last point.
I don’t see how a self-organizing universe is inherently more absurd than an entity capable of creating such universes. I don’t think those are the only two options, but leaving it at that for the moment, I don’t see how either perspective can wholly escape the charge that, on some deep level we most likely hide from ourselves, we pretty much just pick the one we like — or the one that takes us where we want to go.
Philly Endiointmente said:
I’m not saying naturalism is a TOTAL explanation. I’m saying it’s a sufficient one.
Philly Endiointmente said:
To reiterate, I’m not making the rationalist claim that Michael is hearing, that rationalism excludes God. I’m objecting to his claim that our knowledge of physiology and how it relates to human emotions and experiences is at base the same sort of knowledge as a knowledge of God. It’s not a choice between two “faiths.” That’s a cop out. I’m saying that neuroscience is a SUFFICIENT explanation for the sorts of experiences Michael was saying allude to the divine, and that therefore they are not valid justifications for belief in God. They may be his reasons, but all that means is that he prefers to let these experiences speak to him of God. Which is fine.
But I don’t “prefer” to have a neuroscientific explanation for human emotions. I just have one. (So does Michael. It’s public information.)
Irritable said:
“I’m not trying to offer a rationally defensible air tight case that God exists; I’m offering the reasons why I choose to believe in him.”
And yet your language is more polemical than that, and the title of this post is “How do we know God exists?” and not “Why I like believing in God.”
Irritable said:
Philly,
I noticed your comment about this not being a choice between “two faiths” and I agree, but I don’t think it’s a choice between one view that bears a one-to-one correlation with the world as it “really is” and one that has embroidered that world with mythologies.
At bottom, however, science (and the larger epistemological frames in which science is situated) cannot claim to be less of a construct than faith, though obviously it follows different rules and offers different goods. It is native to frame in which these kinds of debates generally take place, which means that the naturalist, the atheist, or the scientific rationalist has a kind of home court advantage.
Science can do a good job of rendering God, or the supernatural, redundant and unnecessary, but it cannot completely rule them out as possibilities. Once, however, we begin to seek out other possibilities, being unsatisfied with limiting ourselves to only those claims that can be falsified, we enter a world of speculation.
We might have any number of good reasons for rejecting science as a naysayer of the numinous, but what that leaves us with is and always has been very much up for grabs.
Philly Endiointmente said:
Irritable,
Thank you for restating what I just said.
Philly Endiointmente said:
“I don’t think it’s a choice between one view that bears a one-to-one correlation with the world as it ‘really is’ and one that has embroidered that world with mythologies.”
Correct. There is NO view that can offer a one-to-one correlation, but the reduction (or inflation) of science to a “faith” is either disingenuous or confused.
Michael DeFazio said:
In order…
Philly,
Wikipedia’s definition of rationalism: In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification” (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory “in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive” (Bourke 263). Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position “that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge” to the radical position that reason is “the unique path to knowledge” (Audi 771). This is what I accused you of, and I stand by it.
Irritable,
Welcome! And I think you’re right.
Philly,
You are excluding as in any way justifiable the reasons I have offered that influence my confession of faith in God on the sole basis of “natural explanations.” You may not think it’s total, but you’re surely using sufficiency pretty strongly. I guess I just don’t see the difference.
I’m not hearing you say that rationalism excludes God. I’m hearing you say that the only viable way (or at least the best way with lots of emphasis on best) to explain these realities is by a rationalistic or natural explanation. I’m not saying they’re exactly the same, and I don’t think it’s a copout. Why do you think it’s sufficient? I guess it’s this that you’re not saying; you’re just making accusations about me (confused and ignorant) and my arguments (copout) without justifying your most basic assumption. And “all that means” is why I label you reductionistic. It does mean this, no doubt, but that’s not necessarily all it means. I don’t understand your last statement.
Irritable,
I’m probably guilty as charged there. Sorry about that! I originally did this at our church, and I aim to subvert the assumption of the title with the first few paragraphs. A more descriptive title would probably be, “the reasons why I choose to believe in God.”
Philly, you can get hung up on the word “faith” if you want to. The point is that you choose to trust the scientific construct for extra-scientific reasons. That doesn’t mean they’re equally justifiable paths to knowledge. But there is an element of trust in adhering to either of them. Do you call it “disingenuous and confused” because science has a proven track record of explaining things well? Or because it’s an oversimplification? Or because it is often used as an excuse not to think any further? I’m a bit confused by that.
Thanks for the dialogue, friends. I’m probably out for the night…
Philly Endiointmente said:
Michael,
You’re still misunderstanding pretty much everything I’m saying. I’ll take responsibility for that.
Re: rationalism. Your definition proves my point. What you want to accuse me of is not rationalism (think Descartes) but empiricism (think Hume). But empiricism doesn’t stick to me either.
Let me restate my criticism of you, and my claims about natural explanations. (I’m just trying to help you to be more precise about what you’re claiming and teaching, not necessarily to change what you’re teaching, and certainly not your beliefs.)
Here goes nothing (literally):
In the body of your argument, you offer seven reasons why you believe God exists. The confusion we’re having in this back and forth relates only to four of those seven. The other three I disagree with for different reasons, which I’ll restate later. But for now, the four that are causing the confusion:
1. Moral Conviction
2. Spirituality
3. Beauty and Goodness
4. Personal Experience
Actually, the 4th may not need to be critiqued alongside the other three. The basic problem there is that most people have a personal experience that confirms their respective beliefs for them. That being the case, this is not a very good reason to believe in your specific God, or any God at all. You should be suspicious of this, if you’re honest, and honest enough to admit that if you were a Muslim, you personal experience would probably “confirm” that ontology too, as the personal experiences of countless Muslims have done for them. The same goes for atheists, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, to argue that it might not have weight on its own, but it becomes significant as part of a “cumulative” argument is unsatisfactory. If a “cumulative” case is built on units of evidence that on their own possess no real weight, but look substantial when held up side by side, that is not a good case; it is an optical illusion.
But let’s deal with (1), (2) and (3). You say that the fact that all human societies have a morality (even if it’s not the same morality, but a morality nonetheless), the fact that the majority of humanity have generally had a “spirituality” throughout history, and the fact that there is beauty and goodness in the world says to you that belief in God is more probable than not.
I am saying that these things themselves are not pointing you to God. You are looking at them, and postulating God to explain them. In a poetic sense, they “speak of God to you.” But you must acknowledge that these things do not “speak” at all about anything other than themselves. The world is there before us, as a fact, a surprising one, to be sure. But the world does not point to God (if it did, which god would it point to, and how do we know?) in any sense other than in the poetic sense of the one who is looking for God in the world.
You completely mischaracterize me (and misunderstand my claims) when you claim that I “choose to trust the scientific construct for extra-scientific reasons.”
I am not trusting the scientific construct any more than you are. Understand that. I know full well that you do not deny that neuroscience explains what is happening in our brains when we have what we call “spiritual” experiences, when we experience certain emotions (fear, awe, joy, etc.), and that neuroscience together with social sciences adequately explain why our brains react the way they do to certain stimulants in order to produce a particular sensation. I know that you accept this. This is all that I’m saying. Science explains how and why (conditioning>>stimulant>>affectation) we have “mountain top” experiences, “spiritual” trances, and (as neuro-biological evolutionary science has shown, along with occasional help from anthropology) why we as a species have something like what some philosophers call “morality” and what parts of the brain are functioning when we are doing moral reasoning.
You have the same “faith” in science I do, when it comes to that. When I am saying that science is a “sufficient” explanation, I am not saying that it’s a rival explanation to theology. I’m saying that it sufficiently explains why and how we function the way we do and how we developed to function this way (physiologically and socially).
To deny the empirical data is irrational, which is not to say that affirming the empirical data is reductionistic. I am not saying the natural explanation is “all there is,” or that it’s the only explanation. I am saying that it is sufficient to explain why you feel like there’s something bigger out there when you are standing on top of a (big) mountain or looking out at a (big) sky of stars. The sensation we feel is perfectly explicable in terms of neurology. Nothing more need be posited than: that’s the way we work.
Now, most of us experience these things, and whether we know there is a sufficient natural explanation or not, we feel like there must be “more to it.” As I pointed out earlier, this feeling itself (the feeling that there must be more to it) is explicable in terms of neurology.
The world is a fact. Our brains are a fact within that fact. And that they release chemicals from a certain quadrant that produce the sensation we have learned to name “moreness” is also a fact, a fact of biology, which is a fact of the world. The fact of the world is a given. There is no explanation for it that is intrinsic to it. Any “meaning” of the world is something that lies beyond the world.
That human beings look at a river in a glen from the peak of a mountain and see beauty is a fact. That our brains release chemicals to give us that sensation of beauty, awe, and transcendence–that is also a fact. That the beauty of the riven in the glen “points us to God” is not a fact, but a poetic construct. We are positing an ontology to “explain” the fact (but not in the same sense as the neurological explanation), but that ontology is not a fact of the world. By its very definition it “is” beyond the world, and therefore beyond the limits of language (which are coterminous with the limits of the world).
Put most simply: a flower does not tell us of God’s existence; we tell the flower that it tells us of God’s existence.
You are assuming that I am saying that science is a paradigm for interpreting the world just like theology is. I am not saying that. Science is a way of seeing the world, but it not a way of seeing the world in the same way that theology or metaphysics is a way of seeing the world. It is not a rival to poetry, so that either the scientist or the poet is right, but not both. You know this.
When I say that science is a sufficient explanation, I am saying that science is attempting to explain the fact of the world. When I say that theology is a gratuitous explanation, I am saying that theology is attempting to ascribe meaning to the fact of the world. Science cannot falsify a construction of meaning. And theology cannot falsify a demonstration of fact.
Therefore, when you are making the claim that you believe in God because (1) there is what we call beauty, (2) there is what we call morality, and (3) there is what we call spirituality, you are making a statement of belief that is not in fact justified by what we call beauty, morality, and spirituality. What you are doing is postulating a metanarrative and interpreting the world within it. Atheists do the same thing, and their metanarratives are equally coherent. And so on, and so forth.
So, if you are honest, all you can really say is, I believe in God, and I believe in a very particular God within a very particular narrative, and therefore, when I look at certain facts of the world, I interpret those facts within the context of my belief in God. This is reducible to: I see God because I see God. The most honest answer to the question, “How do you know God exists?” is: “I don’t. But I choose to because the idea gives me comfort, or because it gives me hope, or because that’s how I was raised and I haven’t yet found reason to reject my heritage, etc. etc.” These are honest answers. “Because grass is pretty” and “people know what decency means” are not justifications for belief in God. They are facts of the world. To claim that they are justifications for your belief in God is the very definition of circular reasoning.
As for your other three arguments (design, first cause, and the resurrection of Jesus), they are problematic too. Design is problematic, actually, for all the same reasons detailed just above. The facts of the world do not indicate a designer, except that we bring to the fact our prior experience that says that complex things are designed. The analogy of the watchmaker is again a case of circular reasoning. We are interpreting the facts based upon our prior conditioning. But the fact is, we simply do not have an explanation for origins. None is possible. The world is a given. No explanation necessary. We begin with the fact. How or whether we interpret that fact is up to us. But a given is by definition something that requires no justification. (That’s an analogy.)
As it happens, every attempt to use the facts of the world to argue for design has failed, as has every attempt to prove that the world must have had an uncaused cause. The law of cause and effect only obtains within time and space. If time and space began with the world, the law of cause and effect would not and could not apply. You appeal to these slogans and speak of “probability,” but give no explanation for why you think the facts of complexity and existence are “more probable.” Based on what calculations? If on any calculations, who did them for you? And how can any calculations done within the world of facts, based on a world of facts, point in any specific direction beyond a world of facts? That is an absurdity.
Moreover, even if the facts of the world could direct us to God, to what character of God would they necessarily direct us? Do the facts of the world point us to monotheism or polytheism? To monism or dualism? To they point us to a God of love, or to a God of rage, or to a schizophrenic God? Do they point us to an absent God? Or do they point us to an uncaused flying monkey that had all the faculties enough to create a complex universe, but can’t itself speak English or ride a unicycle?
As for the resurrection, do read the essays on the two links I posted above, and refer again to the argument I had with you about that subject on another one of your posts.
I hope that I have clarified myself here. I am not a closed-universe naturalist and I am not advocating closed-universe naturalism when I say that natural explanations for your sensory phenomena are sufficient, and theological explanations are poetic and gratuitous.
Remember: You look at the world and see God, because God is how you see the world, not because the world tells you to see God.
Don’t change what you believe. Don’t change what you practice. Just understand the nature of your claims; be precise, and don’t lead people into a false sense of justification–only for them to become disillusioned later when they figure things out.
Michael DeFazio said:
Thanks for explaining yourself in some detail. I haven’t had a chance to look at this yet and I’ll wait until I can read it closely to continue. But I will comment! Just give me a day or so. Thx!
Philly Endiointmente said:
My theism is in limbo here.
Michael DeFazio said:
Sorry bro! I will comment, I promise. We’re trying to plug dozens of people into Life Groups right now so things are a bit crazy. Suspend judgment until I can clear everything up for you.
Philly Endiointmente said:
Jesus is gonna come back before I can make an informed decision!