Why should a person believe in God?

In this world, it is hard to be sure of anything very interesting. I am not sure that my wife really loves me, cannot be sure that my children are my own (!), and cannot be positive that I will live to see the afternoon.

And yet . . . though there is little I can know beyond a doubt, there is much that I can know beyond a reasonable doubt . . . and even more that is reasonable to believe provisionally as a working idea.

Very early in their development, humans are aware of a “me” that seems distinct from their body. Call this self what you will . . . and argue that it comes into being in any way you like, but this “I” is impossible to doubt. It gives meaning to experiences and value to life.

Though they obviously interact, it is also fairly intuitive that knowing about my body is not the same as knowledge about this “self.”

There is a physical universe that seems like my body, but there is also an equally interesting world of Ideas that relate to self. It might be my body (even my selfish genes!) that provide the material basis for my passions or feelings, but it is this soul that gives those feelings meaning.

Most human beings come into contact with the world of Ideas and learn to love the conceptual . . . we love Something . . . and there seems no reason to doubt that this Something exists (however it has achieved that existence). It is unknown to us . . . but as Plato says in Symposium this Unknown is known to us by the passion for the Good, the True, and Beautiful it stimulates.

It is tempting to reduce the physical to the spiritual (or world of ideas), but this is too simple. Though the physical world is often not as it appears and people argue about it and what something even so seemingly simple as matter IS (and though denying its existence is much easier than denying the existence of Self and Ideas), at bottom it still seems to exist.

The universe is out there.

In the same way, hasty folk might be tempted to simply reduce the Self and Ideas to the material. We are all just bits and pieces of matter and energy in mindless motion and it is Mind that is the illusion.

Progress in knowledge about the physical world might make the arrogant drunk on the thought that everything could be reduced to the physical sciences . . . but knowing what a thing is made of or where it came from (even if that were true of the soul itself) would not say so very much about what it is.

The fact that one can more easily (and just as rationally) reduce everything to Ideas projected by Mind should give the imperialist wearing a lab coat pause. Two can play at that game. . . and there is no reason to prefer one simplistic solution over the other.

I am not sure that there is both a physical and non-physical reality, but it seems the best, easiest interpretation of my experience. There are decent arguments against it . . . but these arguments face the great burden of proof of denying what cannot really be doubted by me (that there is a first person “I”) or denying the overwhelming evidence of external senses that everything is not “me.”

I know there is something out there, but I don’t know (at first) what it is. Plato calls this “god” the Known Unknown.

This love of the Known Unknown is a long way from knowledge of Jesus Christ, but it is a start. Knowledge of the world of Ideas (which would include numbers as well as person!) is not easily gained. Progress here, as everywhere, would be hard won. We would expect men to disagree about what they find, misinterpret their experiences, and reason out meaning only slowly.

Religion, like any knowledge tradition, would make mistakes, have false starts, but eventually come to better ideas and deeper truths.

There is an additional possibility. If God should turn out to be a person, then perhaps this God would wish to speak to us and help jump start the process through Revelation.

He might help make both physical science and spiritual science possible by giving us clues to His existence or by revealing what is most needful to us.

Such a great being, who would be like humanity in terms of being a Spirit, but utterly beyond us in terms of His fully possessing the goodness, truth, and beauty we loved from birth, might also desire free followers.

If this were true, then the “hidden” nature of God makes sense.

God could speak in miracles, but to do so too often would run the risk of making us dependent in a childish way. . . like easy welfare has done to much of Appalachia.

He could speak often in mystery and awe us with His unfathomable Otherness, but that would discourage reason in creatures already sadly apt to despise thinking for self.

He could assert His authority by appearing in our souls and shouting in a way that could not be denied, but that would reduce us from potential lovers to puppets.

Instead God (if He exists) and if He desires loving relationships with His children, must choose the hard road of a good parent. He would have to keep His object in mind . . . and allow His children to err or even to reject Him.

God wants us to be free to chose Him for love alone.

He would (to paraphrase Dostoyevsky) have to be careful in the use of miracles, mystery, and authority lest He overwhelm us and cut off our progress in becoming adult, fully rational, creative creatures. Like a good parent, He must guide as little as possible . . . in order to allow for as much growth as possible.

Does such a being exist? Has He spoken?

These will be difficult questions to answer. First, if He is real and wishes to speak to us, then our spiritual experience is a first step. If humans had no sense of the Divine, then it would be safe to question its existence. Humans do have such a sense, but we disagree about what it means.

Spiritual experiences are not simple. The fact that one encounters a “spiritual sense” or a “spiritual being” does not make it God or good. That there is a Divine does not mean everything in the world of Ideas or Spirit is good.

Next there is the human risk of misunderstanding or misinterpreting what God has said. Humans are given to the use of “miracles” to manipulate . . . Too often we use power to fix problems and then demand those we help become our serfs in exchange. (”Look! I have given you contact lenses now you must give me your mind!”) . . .

God will not do this.

The true seeker must look at the messages of all the putative holy books . . . and see if they smack of truth, goodness, and beauty. Do they challenge, tease, and lead? Do they create or deny civilization? Does their message (on the whole) lead to human flourishing?

If such a path of thoughtfulness is followed, it leads (at least in my case) to the God of the Holy Bible.

Best reason combined with experience and Revelation indicates that there is a Divine, that He is a person (not just a force), that He loves His children and desires them to be free.

These initial thoughts come from a re-reading (really a listening on my Ipod to a reading) of Brothers Karamazov and from a thoughtful email exchange with a reader. Using these thoughts as a prelude, let me append his most recent email below.

My thoughtful reader says:

I read your response to my letter on your blog. Thank you for considering it post-worthy.

The question I posed to you at the end wasn’t rhetorical. I apologize if it came off that way. If you are able to empathize with an atheist perspective, as you say, then how will you answer the questions that someone like Heather McDonald brings up to an atheist?

I try to answer all the question I am asked logically, using passion for goodness, truth, and beauty to move me from experiences and ideas we might have in common to better ways of living for both of us.

Of course I fail at this often, but I have beloved mentors and friends who are non-theists (of one kind or another). Though never tempted by atheism itself, I understand its appeal . . . as I understand the appeal of “idealism” or “spiritualism” . . . (reducing everything to ideas or Mind).

The reader continues:

>From a Christian perspective, the answers in your article make sense. But to someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of gods, appeals to God are wholly without substance and cannot reasonably support an acceptable answer that can be verified, either personally or independently.

I say:

I hear this from atheists a lot, but it doesn’t makes sense to me. After all, if we are discussing whether something (anything!) exists, then I can report that I have seen it, talked it, make Julienne fries with it . . . you get the idea. My testimony does count for something!

Now you might take issue with my experience (or anyone else’s) but it does count as evidence.

You don’t have to believe in a thing in order to consider it as a hypothesis. I don’t believe in a monster in Loch Ness, but I am able to consider what she would be like if she were there.

In the same manner an atheist should be able to consider putative Divine revelations and see if they seem like the sort of thing a God would say if He said something. In fact, atheists do this all the time when they attack the Bible as revelation! (”This statement is unworthy of a good God.”)

Finally postulating God as the best explanation for an event . . . arguing from experience TO God is not the same as arguing from God’s existence to my experience.

Arguing from experiences to consider the God hypothesis is something that should be an option for every open minded person.

My reader continues:

You concede that your opinions about God’s thoughts and intentions are just that, opinions, but that, in a grander perspective, everything humanly expressed is an opinion and that doesn’t necessarily mean that an opinion is false; which I agree is true however beside the point being what makes a particular opinion true.

My opinions about God’s thoughts and intentions are as reasonable, good, true, and beautiful as I know how to make them.

However, my holding an opinion is not (by itself) sufficient reason to think my opinions true. We will have to look at the reasons and experiences which support the opinion. . . but then so will you!

Isn’t the democracy of reason wonderful?

My reader relies:

You believe that you share an intimacy with God similar to that which you share with your wife and that lends weight to your opinions regarding God’s thoughts and intentions similar to the way you know your wifes thoughts and intentions. Additionally, you find no reason not to trust the authority of scripture and philosophies developed by individuals of the caliber of Aquinas and Augustine. These are among the premises that you accept and, for the sake of argument, an atheist accepts that you accept these premises.

I reply:

Actually I would put it this way: I have good reason to accept the work of thoughtful traditional Christians as the best explanation for my religious experiences.

My reader continues:

Understand that, from an atheist perspective, Christian philosophers and scriptures are no more or less authorities on God than you are and do not lend more weight to your opinions on God.

That does not seem reasonable. First, we have to determine the value to give the testimony of the philosophers or of Sacred Scriptures. Second, we have to examine the arguments they give.

From my perspective as a theist, the fact that an atheist (like Bertrand Russell) is very bright and makes interesting arguments for atheism (or at least non-theism) is good reason to look into atheism.

In the same way, the fact that one billion people find the Christian answer satisfying does not make it true, but it does mean that just dismissing it is folly. It may not be true, but it must work pretty well as a world view (as Islam or Hinduism do as well).

Of course, this does NOT mean that we should accept something JUST because Smart Guy A says so, but we should examine what the experts say to see if they are right . . . best we can.

My reader replies:

Your opinions are automatically compared against the opinions of others who also accept the premises that you do but who come to different conclusions than you have and an atheist is unable to reconcile these often dramatic differences with the idea of one, consistent deity that each of these individuals, including yourself, claim to know and reasonably represent in one form or another; thus invalidating your appeals to God (my insertion of a break here) . . .

I reply:

I really don’t think this need disturb us too much. People have dramatically different views about the nature of people . . . but we don’t doubt they exist.

Really the burden of proof is on the atheist . . . who claims there is no Divine realm. If there is good reason (based on experience and arguments) to think there is, then the fact that many differ in some ways in how they EXPLAIN it is no more shocking than when experts differ in any area they try to explain.

Have you checked out the radically different theories of human psychology lately?

I would not be impressed with anyone who said: “I cannot even relate to what you are saying when you talk about humans . . . given that psychologists start with the same experience of humanity and come to such radically different conclusions.”

As for different explanations of the Divine realm . . . are there really so many viable ones? Let us eliminate thoughtless ones, just as we would eliminate thoughtless explanations for physical reality. It is no shock that unreasonable people would develop explanations unreasonably.

We can eliminate ideas that have themselves to be incoherent or internally contradictory. We can also eliminate ideas (like Sock Monsters hiding under beds and eating socks) that can easily be replaced by more elegant and “simpler” views . . . following the advice of the Christian theist William of Ockham.

Theology develops over time . . . and what we find is that most of the world’s thoughtful theists fall into the great monotheistic traditions (Islam, Judaism, or Christianity).

To the extent they share experiences and assumptions they produce the so-called God of the philosophers who is recognizable and the same entity (personal, all powerful, all present, all knowing). It is not hard to pick the god of the philosophers out from Zeus for example if one had a divinity line up.

So to the extent philosophers share a premise they seem to have reached pretty remarkable unanimity (for philosophers!) . . . or at least as great an agreement as they have reached (for good or bad) regarding the nature of human persons.

Now . . . theists (of all sorts) argue about the details because they do not all share the same ideas. Is this God revealed in the Bible? (Most say yes . . . but argue about the extent of this revelation . . . Islam adds more than Christianity and Judaism less.)

I think my Islamic and Jewish friends wrong . . . but am opened minded. I have to follow the evidence as best I can. . . just as I have decided that one ancient expression of Christianity is best for me . . . and get along splendidly with my friends that don’t agree.

My certainty moves from being very certain “there are more things in heaven and earth” than Heather McDonald’s philosophy seems to have room for, to being certain beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a God like the God of the philosophers, to believing that the bulk of the evidence (and my own spiritual experience) points to Jesus Christ as His only Son and Revelation of God to humanity.

You should become a Christian (if you aren’t) . . . all the freedom to be Socratic and all the love and passion of Paradise!

Now of course there are schools of thought that decide to explain the Divine very, very differently (they reject some of the premises I and other traditional theists accept) and come out with a Divine Nature more like that of Spinoza or Hinduism.

That is what arguments are for . . . and again seems no different than proposing competing explanations for very difficult phenomena in nature. That does not distress me . . . but gives me a reason to keep thinking!

My reader continues:

as it would competing and contradictory notions about any other fantastic entity like the sock eating monster or the Smurfs, no matter what the arguments for this deity may be or how far back the belief in this deity spans or how pervasive the belief in this deity has become.

I reply:

Actually if there was a long term belief in Smurfs, then that would be a decent reason to at least examine the evidence for their existence.

I refuse to dismiss an idea or belief by merely labeling it fantastic.

Don’t be prejudiced! (He says with a grin. . . )

My writer continues:

There is nothing particularly sophisticated about theism (or atheism, for that matter) and no amount of logical argumentation gets around the aforementioned discrepancy.

I reply:

I don’t agree. It just isn’t the case that competing explanations of a phenomenon means that it does not exist . . .

And if you mean that in general terms both theism and atheism can be stated simply, then you are right. But you cannot attack an idea, then complain when the answer to the attack is more sophisticated . . .

My reader continues:

In my short lifetime alone, I’ve seen the issue endlessly rehashed and I do not think it is an intellectual matter, it is an emotional one. All argumentation (sophisticated or otherwise) is merely justification and rationalization for how one feels about the matter but does absolutely nothing to objectively prove or disprove it as any kind of shared reality.

I reply:

In my not-so-short lifetime I have seen many issues endlessly discussed. Some people do it intellectually . . . and other people just talk. The people who do so intellectually can change their mind . . . as I have done myself (as a former pagan). People who just want to shout at each other are doing nothing much.

Just as science and scientific progress are not always obvious at any given conference . . . so the much more difficult field of understanding spiritual reality often looks muddled. However, progress is possible! From Anselm to Plantinga (for example) the ontological argument for God has changed . . . grown more robust, sound, and sophisticated. Is the job done? Few jobs in philosophy are ever done (thank God!), but that does not mean progress is not made.

Science is never done. . . philosophy is never done . . . we commit ourselves and then we see!

Bluntly, if I went by my feelings I would have been a high pagan (atheism never appealed to me on rational grounds). It is just false that all arguments are just emotions shrouded in rhetoric.

On the other hand, I love God now (just as I love my wife) and so (thank goodness!) emotions are part of my love affair with the Divine. I love science . . . and so support it partly for that reason.

However, I don’t love Ed Weirenga’s view of omnipotence, but support it anyway, because I think it well argued. There are issues where love (or emotion) seems pretty distant!

And if evidence suggested (as pray God it never will) that my wife did not love me . . . or that God was not real . . . I trust and hope that I would change my mind whatever the cost.

I have done so in the past, giving up what I wanted most, and trust I would again.

I guess I am more optimistic about reason and discourse than you. It does not have to end in rhetoric or shouting! I love the process. . . and I think it works given time.

My reader continues:

And I don’t think it’s even a matter about what is right or wrong but more to do with how persuasive and, in turn, how easily persuaded people are.

I reply:

I am sure that this is true sometimes . . . so I hope I am persuading you! But I hope this persuasion is based on reason, logic, as well as the heart. There is nothing wrong with love . . .

The universe seems beautiful (on the whole), science seems to find truth (or something ever closer to it) when open minded, and goodness staggers my mind.

If theism gives me the problem of evil (and it does), at least it acknowledges the more important thing: the overwhelming goodness of creation that makes the evil apparent.

I don’t feel helped by simplistically getting rid of evil . . . and losing the good!

For the open minded, God can explain both the existence of the rose (whatever the process He used to make it), the fact that it is beautiful, and the goodness of living in a world with roses.

I do think there is truth out there and that we can come closer to it. I think the history of Christianity shows this type of progress in ideas. From inventing the modern university, to helping invent modern science, to fighting for a culture that affirms life . . . we have learned from our errors (some tragic) and come closer to the Christian ethic of love.

My reader continues:

All that said, what do you think an atheist (I’m still assuming) like Heather McDonald would consider a convincing answer to her questions? You sincerely feel that what you believe is true the same way that Heather believes whatever she believes and that belief brings you closer with other people who also believe in the same truth. There are documented benefits to this fellowship that you share in (personal, social, economic, etc) from the perspectives of a variety of scientific disciplines and philosophical traditions. I understand that such arguments tend to somewhat trivialize the personal significance of what one believes to be absolute truth; however, I think it is an effective way to foster some mutual understanding … if that is, in earnest, what one wants to accomplish.

I reply:

I don’t think that will do. Ms. McDonald made ARGUMENTS against traditional theistic practices like prayer or traditional Christian arguments for God’s goodness. Her arguments were unsound or she wrongly described the doctrines she rejected.

She claims that Christianity believes God is manipulable through many prayers. Either she is attacking a straw man or she is unaware of what Christianity teaches . . . since Our Lord Himself rejects this idea in a Book any well educated person in the West should have read!

If I am right about this (and I demonstrably am), then her arguments must be rejected. If these arguments are why she is not a theist, then she should fix them or become a theist. This process works . . . and even the fixing of her arguments would be progress.

I reject atheism because it seems too simple to explain the dual nature of reality . . . but perhaps I am wrong. At least if I am right, then I will know it some day . . . and can be optimistic about rational discourse (one reason Christianity helped create science).

It is great to discourse . . . and we are clarifying and moving forward . . . not just being emotional! Our dialog proves it can be done!