mikereflects.com
Questions that challenge the existence of God or gods
L5/1 The universe is materialistic (science will one day explain
all existence in purely physical terms)! Why do we need the concept of God?
L5/2 The universe is causal – so if God created it, who created God?
L5/3 You can’t prove God exists can you? - So all religion is a lie.
L5/Q1. The universe is materialistic - so science will one day explain all existence in purely physical terms – we don’t need the concept of God to explain anything –so why talk about a non-existent god?
This question is being posed by an Atheist. In answering it we need to avoid any recourse to ‘god of the gaps’ and concentrate on why there are many tangible entities (viz., that the atheist will not dispute) that are outside the remit of science, i.e., why it is that the universe is not explainable in purely physical terms. Science is neutral w.r.t. the metaphysical and does not support naturalism per se any more than theism. (It may also be helpful to refer back to answers to L4/Q1).
One answer:
Your view that the universe is materialistic is a popular idea, but from an objective philosophical perspective it is unlikely to be true. The modern atheistic view is that human beings are merely complex physical bi-products of cosmic processes and that all our ideas of value, freedom and purpose are illusions. Philosopher Keith Ward (Fellow of the British Academy and a member of the Royal Institute of Philosophy) comments on this view (in More than Matter, 2010, Lion Hudson), that he considers this picture of human life is both scientifically questionable and philosophically naive.
He goes on to show convincingly that human persons are not accidental mistakes in a pointless perambulation of fundamental particles, but rather they are a window into the inner reality, value and purpose of the cosmos. Even some modern atheists (e.g. Antony Flew) have come to realise together with many scientists that the universe can’t be explained in purely physical terms and physical laws. Many thinkers have come to the view that the universe is closer to the notion of mind than the notion of matter. That being the case, it is quite reasonable to postulate that there is an ultimate mind upholding the universe which Christians call God. It is this Mind that gives meaning and purpose to human existence and destiny (M).
Another Answer:
What makes you assume that the universe is materialistic? To put a personal touch to this, can science explain your current consciousness and what you are thinking? It can only break your brain activity down to firing neurons and chemical signals, etc., but science cannot explain or ‘look at’ your actual feelings and decisions. Do your firing brain neurons control your decisions or is there a higher interaction telling your neurons and electrons what to do? I believe Science can never explain what your consciousness looks or feels like nor explain any purpose to your existence. Science operates by reducing everything down to a level where it can be explained and when we do that we loose so much information: we will never get to the point where we can explain everything.
There are a large amount of facts and experiences from millions of people to suggest that God does exist. We generally believe the information that we get from people we trust. Christianity is based on an experiential and factual knowledge of God. There are huge numbers of people who have had personal experiences of God through visions. Nobody can tell me the experiences that I and many others have had is not real. I have a faith in God and trust that what has been said about him is true.
People believe in many things they can’t see and understand, but that does not mean they don’t exist. But that does not mean that they don’t exist. We believe in events that took place 100’s of years ago in history books (even though the evidence available today very limited) and I have no reason to doubt what I have read of other people’s accounts about God. In regards to your comment that ‘we do not need God to explain anything’, science will never be able to explain many things we are aware of.
It is each person’s choice whether they can believe that God exists or that he does not exist. We can only truly know that God exists when we truly search for him and are willing to have faith and trust in him. I believe that God created the universe and the amazing beings we are, capable of thinking about why we exist and discuss this very question. (H & G)
Another Answer
You are expressing a faith position: you have faith in the ability of naturalism to explain everything, even though you are aware that it has not yet explained everything. So why is this atheistic faith better than a theistic faith? There are many things that naturalism does not have an adequate explanation for. Properly attested miracles are one example (from the resurrection of Jesus through to modern day miracles). It is true that many modern miracle stories are exaggerations and some just plain fabrications, but there are others that are not so easily explained away. The atheist must simply shut his eyes to the evidence and believe in faith that there must be a naturalistic explanation.
There are also things within everyday experience that naturalism doesn’t explain: morality, for example, and our absolute sense of justice and fairness. Immanuel Kant and CS Lewis have both, in different ways, argued convincingly that morality points to the existence of God – or at the very least that if we wish to abandon our notion of God that we must, to be consistent, abandon our notions of morality as well. If morality is simply a feeling, then I cannot claim that the Holocaust was ‘wrong’ in any absolute sense, simply that I (and a lot of other people) don’t like it.
If the Nazis had won the War, the Holocaust would have been ‘right’. Yet few atheists are willing to commit themselves that far. People like Richard Dawkins would argue that morality is part of how we have evolved in order to be good at surviving. However, Dawkins’ position is ultimately self-defeating. The philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that if evolution is true then it isn’t rational to believe in it. This is because, if we are simply the products of the blind forces of evolution, there is no reason to suppose that our brains have evolved to be particularly good at working out how we got here in the first place. They only need to be good at helping us survive. Asking abstract philosophical and existential questions (and being able to answer them accurately) is an occupation that doesn’t necessarily have a huge survival advantage. Therefore, even if naturalism is true, we shouldn’t necessarily believe it.
The majority of humans through time and still today are religious and religion does help form and maintain stable communities and societies. The rapid decline of Christian values in Britain for example has led to a catastrophic loss of trust in others, a lack of fidelity and commitment, and a lack of morality at every level of society. Therefore it could be argued (as Voltaire suggested) that, even if there is no god, it is necessary for the survival of humanity that we believe in one. To conclude ,I reject the premise of the question (that science can explain everything). Even if I accepted it, however, I would still argue that there is value in talking about God. (A)
L5/2 The universe is causal – so if God created it, who created God?
This is an old chestnut which relies on the notion that everything in the universe seems to have a causal relationship which science describes as starting just prior to the big bang when the universe sprang into existence from a zero time-space origin. However the supposition fails to realise that the existence of an uncreated first cause is logically possible, i.e. it is reasonable to postulate that when the universe started from a zero time origin that universal cause and effect also came into existence at that instance. It is also reasonable to suppose that the universe with its inherent causal nature must have had a first cause. The fallacy is to think that this first cause necessarily is itself caused. God to be God must necessarily be timeless and uncreated and Christians believe God is the first cause of the space-time universe. It is virtually impossible for us as time based creatures to conceive of a timeless existence. Christians also believe that the uncreated God in creating space-time has in doing so also transmuted his own timeless pre-existence into time-full existence without loss of integrity.(M)
Another answer
A thing only needs a cause if it has a beginning. And a thing only needs a beginning if it has contingent existence (i.e. that it depends on other things in order to exist itself). The classical understanding of God is that he is not contingent, and therefore that he has no beginning. Consequently, if God exists, there is no need to explain why God exists or where he came from; he just is.(A)
God is an eternal and self sufficient being without beginning or end and does not need nor depend on anything outside of himself.(G)
L5/3 You can’t prove God exists can you (So religion is a lie)! Isn't faith just irrational belief in the face of the evidence? Isn’t the existence of God just wishful thinking by believers?
One line of answer:
Does the fact that you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist make atheism is a lie? Might not belief in the non-existence of God be just as much wishful thinking by non-believers? Helpful discussion does not seem to be progressed much by either side casting aspersions on the motivation or the intelligence of the other.
Further I don’t accept ‘irrational belief’ as a definition of faith. Faith means ‘trust’. We all have faith of some sort, in a variety of different things. I have faith when I sit on a chair that it will bear my weight. I have faith that when I go home my parents will welcome me in and look after me. I have faith that when I cast a vote at an election, my vote will be counted fairly, and that I will not be persecuted for voting for the ‘wrong’ candidate. All of these are matters of faith. Faith is based on the evidence of past experience and the level of trust we put in various people: and this is how we all understand that ‘faith’ operates. I can’t prove that the chair will support me, except by sitting on it. If I do I am not acting irrationally since I have reasonable evidence it will support me based on my personal experience of chairs, and the same notions apply to our personal relationships.
Religious faith is no different. We can only prove faith by exercising it and when it comes to people and to God the proof is generally personal to us, though others can observe the evidence of my faith and so be encouraged to exercise their faith. The question is whether I or you, trust the evidence that I or you, have – or, to be more precise, whether or not we trust the people who brought the evidence. However your question implies you believe the evidence against faith is much stronger than any evidence for faith! But doesn’t that really depend on what evidence you have so far considered and what further evidence you are prepared to objectively look at?
My Christian faith is based on the eye-witness testimony of a number of people who claimed to have seen Jesus raised from the dead. They are shown to be trustworthy witnesses in that they were willing to go through persecution, torture and death for a claim that if untrue, can only have been a deliberate lie. It is also the case that for 2000 years, people of all sorts of walks of life have found in this faith the power to overcome sins, temptations, fears and failings that they did not find anywhere else. Further it consists in the fact that I find the vision set out by Jesus to be a vision of love, hope, wisdom and peace: a vision that correctly diagnoses the futility and brokenness of the human condition and alone offers an effective remedy for this through Jesus: a vision I want to share, and that I have not found anywhere else. Even if my faith were mistaken, I don’t think it is irrational, and neither does it ignore or discount the evidence I have available to me.
It is worth noting that truth only matters if there is a God. If there is no God, what matters is finding personal fulfilment in whatever we find best. But the world’s greatest thinkers have always found that headlong pursuit of pleasure, possessions and power are ultimately unsatisfying, however alluring they seem for a while. By contrast, Christian faith offers the keys to genuine fulfilment: the chance to be set free from slavishly following the world’s agenda or of possibly being hooked on destructive addictions; and again, the release of being able to acknowledge and detest one’s own moral failings and then to be freed from guilt and empowered to be transformed. And then positively, faith gives the opportunity to dedicate your life to bringing about good; the joy of being part of a community of people dedicated to such positive goals; and the hope that one day the world will be transformed into a perfect place (this without working for violent revolution nor on the other hand, of cynically accepting that such transformation is pointless idealism).
In summary, it is not the case that I believe that the evidence does not support Christian belief; simply that I accept that it cannot be proven and that the interminable arguments that arise from trying to do so are rather futile. Secondly, I reject the assumption that being a Christian would be a waste of a life if Christianity were untrue; on the contrary, I contend that being a Christian is the best life to follow whether or not it is true!
Another line of answer for the philosophically minded
These three questions relate to ‘rationality’ and ‘proof of the supernatural’ on the one hand and to irrational beliefs and possible lack of integrity on the other.
Do you really think that all believers who have ever existed are all lying about Jesus Christ and their convictions about the existence of God? If you are that doesn’t seem to be very rational to me, but assuming you aren’t saying that, at best you must believe that all believers are acting irrationally in the face of evidence. Is that right? In that case I would like to ask you what evidence do you have to prove all believers are acting irrationally when it comes to their faith in Jesus Christ and God?
I would need to address whatever points the questioner brought up at this point, however let us assume he deflects my question and comes back to ask me to explain what evidence I have for believing in God and Jesus Christ. If she/he does this I have moved them to a position of accepting that I might possibly have rational evidence for my faith.
First I would point out that rationality is based on reason and logic rather than on emotions or on natural instincts. I consider both reason and logic to be other than a property of the natural world. I accept that people often do not use their abilities in this respect and often think and act based on their natural instincts and emotions, even though we are all endowed with some ability to plug into both reason and the use of logic. My faith is based on both reason and logic. First when it comes to examining rationality itself or spirituality we should expect quite different kind of evidence to verify our beliefs than if for example we are examining scientific theories or legal facts. The evidence required for examining rationality itself is the evidence of compliance with the philosophical rules of logical argument. We can then state that a belief has been proved to be true if the rationality for the belief is shown to be logically valid and its premises sound. So my spiritual beliefs will be true if they are based on logically coherent reasoning and on sound premises. However whether or not you will be persuaded that my beliefs are true will depend on whether we can find common premises that we agree about.
The premises I suggest we might agree on are:-
1. Jesus Christ was a Jewish man who lived from about -6CE to about +34CE
2. The records of his life reflect the Christian convictions of the NT authors as to who he was, what he did and what he taught and they were not deceitfully invented. These records have not been significantly changed in the process of copying and translation.
3. Time and matter (inclusive of entropic energy) are natural phenomena, all other entities not reducible to time and matter, are either sub-natural or super-natural (i.e. ‘spiritual’).
4. Reason and logic exist and are not related to or constrained by time and matter (Reason relates to the power of inference and inference is other than the material universe: it is unrelated to cause and effect, it is not reducible to time or matter).
5. Moral sense is a type of inference and it is not reducible to time and matter.
6. The essence of all time, matter and thought (what I will call God) is not itself material
7. Spiritual entities are either created by God or are part of the nature of God.
8. Humans (at least) have evolved to be capable of tapping into reason and can therefore comprehend logic and moral sense.
9. All I need to prove that God exists is to provide a valid argument as to why God exists.
10. Evidence that an individual may have of personal interaction with God though a confirmation to them of the validity of their faith, is not necessarily relevant to convince others, whereas a changed life or demonstration of spiritual power should provide confirmation to others of the validity of faith.
My valid argument for God’s existence is:
Because of premise 3, 4 and 5 reason, logic and moral sense are spiritual in essence
From premise 3 and 6, if God exists, God is spiritual in essence
If God exists, God is not only the originator of time and matter, but by premise 7 is also the creator of, or essence of, any created and/or uncreated spiritual entities.
Reason, logic and moral sense exist and are spiritual in nature, and so by premise 7, it follows that God must also exist
From premise 8 humans are capable of logically determining whether God exists or doesn’t exist.
Because of premises 9 and 8, I have now proved that God exists.
Because God exists and the Christian religion is related to God’s revelations to us in Jesus Christ, from premises 1 and 2, it is reasonable to conclude that faith in the Christian revelation is also valid and reasonable.
Following my exercising faith in God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, my personal interaction with God is sufficient to confirm for me the validity of my faith in God’s existence and of the Christian revelation.
If you have accepted my premises and the validity of my argument, can I then expect you (based on premise 9 and 10) to look for any evidence of moral spiritual strength in the lives of Christian believers and for you to take action and come to faith yourself?
L5/4 Isn’t conscience merely an inherited sophistication of our genetic make-up that is beneficial for survival in a social context (rather than an implanted voice of God)?
Yes conscience is an inherited sophistication of our genetic make-up and it is beneficial for survival in a social context. But it is not merely that because (referring back to my premises in the previous argument L5/3) humans are capable of tapping into spiritual realities (such as reason, logic and moral truth) and are also capable of interaction with the spiritual reality of God. It follows that conscience can reflect both social norms and spiritual principles.
L5/5 Doesn’t all the evil done in the name of religion prove that a supernatural God doesn’t really exist?
Yes sadly evil has often been done in the name of religion. I am thinking of periods such as the Spanish inquisition or the Crusades where religion was misused to promote political greed with violence or in the case of the Crusades un-Christian religious political project. However whatever is done by sinful human beings can’t have any bearing on whether or not a supernatural God exists. If God exists he has created a universe where autonomous human beings can make free choices to do good or evil: so when they make those choices it has no bearing on whether or not God exists.
But perhaps you are implying that a supernatural God should not allow people (especially religious people) to do evil: and God should stop them especially when they do evil in the God’s name? If God acted like that then we would not be responsible for our actions since we would rightfully claim that God should have prevented us from doing an evil (foreseen or unforeseen): nor would we be free. Whereas Christians believe God doesn’t intervene in this way because God loves his creation and wants human beings at least to live responsibly.
