Faith
Before I became the Youth Minister here at St. Andrew's, I used to run a Drop-In Centre up near Guelph, known as "The Rock," for "unchurched" kids. Basically, it was a weekly drop-in, put on by local churches, in order to provide a place for teens to hang out on a Friday night. I ran it for a little over 2 years, and it was great.
Recently, one of those kids was doing a Philosophy project for his high school class on whether God exists. This guy is not a Christian, by any stretch of the imagination. He calls himself an agnostic. In doing this presentation, he posted his thoughts from his studies on his blog, "Kataron's Blog". One of our mutual friends, Eric, sent me an email saying that I should check Nate's blog out and comment. So I did, and I read this article:
Christianity, contrary to many people's opinions, is not "blind faith" (I mistyped while I was writing that, and almost said "blond faith". It's not that, either, I assure you). In fact, looking throughout history, Christianity has been believed by some of the most intellectual and intelligent people who have ever lived. Beyond specifically Christian faith, theism (the belief in God) of some sort has been believed by an even greater number of intelligent, thinking, and even empirical people.
But people, like my friend Nate, still believe that believing in God takes an enormous leap of faith, across a wide, bottomless chasm, with alligators in it. The leap is so dangerous or ridiculous in their minds, and impossible to actually make, that they don't even try.
However, throughout history, many of the brilliant men and women who believe in God, have thought out "proofs" that God exists (which is a bad term to describe them, since in contemporary usage, "proof" equates to "indisputable fact", whereas back in the renaissance era, when they were first known as "proofs", "proofs" merely meant "evidences"). Briefly, I'll examine the four major ones:
The Cosmological Proof
Initially presented by none other than Aristotle, the Greek Philosopher, this proof basically says that all matter comes from somewhere. Everything is caused by something. You're here, for example, because your parents fell in love, and, sparing you the details, had a baby. They're here because their parents did the same, and so on and on back to the original people. All life is the same, and so is all non-life. Everything that is around us had a beginning. Everything had a cause. Now, Aristotle says, we cannot keep going back forever with our causes. It is necessary that there be a First Cause--and that First Cause is what Aristotle called "God". So, in a nutshell, because there is a world, and that world had to come from somewhere, there must be a God to have made the world.
The Teleological Proof
Taking the Cosmological Proof one step farther, the teleological proof (yes, I know they have weird names. That's because philosophers love making up fancy-sounding names to make themselves seem even smarter) looks at this world, and sees how amazingly intricate and complex it is. That kind of complexity could not be the product of simple chance, but indicates a designer. Often this proof is known as the "Watchmaker Argument" because that is its most common analogy. If you found a watch lying on the ground, looking at its gears and springs and hands and numbers, and seeing how they all work together to make the watch keep accurate time, you would logically assume that someone designed and built that watch, rather than thinking that it was the result of some random convergence of metal pieces. So with the watch, so with the world: the way that everything works, from our solar system down to our DNA, and each piece fitting together and playing its part, indicates to us the presence of a Great Designer who made all of this. That Great Designer is God.
The Ontological Proof
This one is kind of my favourite, but not too many other people like it. Personally, I think that's just 'cause they don't get it. It was first thought out by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the Middle Ages. Basically, it goes like this: God is defined as "that which nothing greater can be conceived." That is to say, God is completely perfect, and if you listed a bunch of attributes or qualities, and compared which would be better, then God would possess the best attributes. So, what is better, for something to be physical or spiritual? Spiritual, therefore God is Spirit. What is better, for God to be evil or good? Good, therefore God is Good. What is better, for God to be all-powerful, or not? Obviously, all-powerful. And so on. Now, the clincher of this argument comes with the question, which is better, for this perfect being to exist, or not to exist? Obviously, such a being existing would be better than that same being not to exist. So since the definition of God used is "that which nothing greater can be conceived", and I can think of a God who does actually exists, and a God that is only imaginary, and that the imaginary God is obviously inferior to the real God, then, by definition, God must exist.
Think of it this way:
A: God = that something which nothing better could ever be thought up.
B: It would be better for something to exist than to just be imaginary
C: Therefore, if there is the choice between something which nothing better could ever be thought up, actually existing or not, then the one that exists is better than the one that doesn't
D: God, then, by definition has to exist.
I know, it's confusing. So on to the last proof:
The Moral Proof
This one was made popular by C. S. Lewis (The Chronicles of Narnia guy) in his book, "Mere Christianity". He points out that all people throughout the world have an inate sense of right and wrong. This sense of right and wrong is amazingly consistent throughout all cultures and all times, so much so that if your at the mall, trying to find a parking spot, and you are waiting for a person to get into their car so you can have their spot, and when that car pulls away, someone else swoops in and takes your spot, your immediate reaction is "That's not fair!" Why? Just because you didn't like what they did? No, but because you and the other person both recognise that your being there first entitled you to that spot. This premise of a moral law is how societies make their laws.
Now, the fact that each person is programmed wtih this law in their hearts is evidence that there is a Lawgiver who wrote that Law. Otherwise, morality would simply be a matter of choice, and there would be no ability to appeal to anyone's sense of fairness or decency--no one would have such a thing! So the fact that, whether we live by the morals we instinctively know to be right or not, we all know them, and therefore know that God has given them to us.
So this is some of the evidence for God. However, that evidence is "circumstantial." It proves that there is a likelihood of X conclusion, but does not do so without the possibility of other explanations. Without direct evidence, these proofs aren't enough to convict.
When we look at that bottomless pit of alligators that we call "faith", however, the logic of these and similar arguments drastically closes the gap. But as I said, the evidence could possibly be interpreted to fit different conclusions (the question isn't, "what's possible?" though, it's "what's most probable?"). So the great chasm is narrowed. For some people, it might be narrower than for others. The thing of it is, it's not closed. A leap of faith is still necessary.
But God is aware of this, and so He has taken it upon Himself to narrow the gap even further. He has, throughout history, revealed Himself to us--through prophets who speak in His name, through miraculous signs, and finally and most fully through Jesus Christ, who was God-in-the-flesh, who came to reveal the fullness of truth about God! Through that Revelation, God has closed the gap still further. Now the great Leap of Faith is much more of a simple step. But just as logic didn't take us all the way to belief, God doesn't reveal Himself so as to take away the necessity of faith. He makes faith in Him easier to have, but leaves faith as a necessary requirement. Why?
Because, as the Bible tells us in Hebrews 11:6:
As a Christian, I chose route #1, and I believe that I got the further evidences that follow. Our good buddy, St. Anselm, when writing his proof (see the Ontological proof above), said this: "Credo ut intelligam." In case your Latin's a little rusty, that's "I believe in order that I might understand." Not much of an empiricist, he was. But he understood the truth that I've been trying to relate above. On the one hand, God has, as one writer has put it, "left His fingerprints all over the world." On the other hand, that same God, who longs to know us, paradoxically hides from us. Why? To see if we'll take that step of faith and seek Him. God is not an academic abstraction. He is a person, who desires a relationship with us. But we have to reciprocate that, and we do that by faith, and seeking Him. God is playing hard-to-get.
Think of it this way: popular culture, many movies, etc. and many people believe in the concept of a "soulmate." They believe that out there somewhere is the person whom they are destined to be with. Now, if that's true, and a person believes it, then they have a level of "academic" or "theoretical" certainty. However, unless that person, in believing this truth about their "soulmate", acts on that "faith" and tries to seek this other person out, they will never find their soulmate. If there is a soulmate for that person, and that person is destined to be with their soulmate, that does not lead to the conclusion that the soulmate will simply fall from the sky into their lap. They have to participate in the search. And, perchance the soulmate did happen to fall from the sky into the person's lap (maybe the soulmate's into skydiving), the two people must still continue to work in order to make a relationship work.
The prophet Jeremiah, speaking for God, says this:
Only the romantic will find his soulmate, because he will be searching.
Only the theist will find God, because he will be searching.
God bless.
Recently, one of those kids was doing a Philosophy project for his high school class on whether God exists. This guy is not a Christian, by any stretch of the imagination. He calls himself an agnostic. In doing this presentation, he posted his thoughts from his studies on his blog, "Kataron's Blog". One of our mutual friends, Eric, sent me an email saying that I should check Nate's blog out and comment. So I did, and I read this article:
More God StuffI was trying to think through a "why you should believe with absolutely no evidence" response. But I didn't get too far. Namely, because I don't believe you should believe something with absolutely no evidence.
I'm too tired to continue my earlier stuff, but after a few comments on that post, I have something on my mind.
One of the things that bothers me most about people is when they assume that they're right, that they have some sort of knowledge that others do not possess. In the case of the comments on the last post, it's Christians assuming themselves correct about all things God. And, of course and to be fair, it's not only Christians, it's a whole lot of other people, but in this case right here, it's Christians. And I understand, I guess. It's what they believe. But it's always just irritated me when somebody tries to tell somebody something with no evidence to support it whatsoever.
And let's face it, religion in general, and I'm talking all religions around this globe of ours, runs on little to no evidence. The Bible? I'd hardly count that as evidence, it's a book. Besides, if we're to believe everything that's written in the Bible...Well then. Too many things in there are just too unbelievable to even be considered as truth. In my oh-so-humble opinion, they're stories on how to live your life. Like fairy tales with morals and such. Don't trust strangers, don't set fire to your pants, etc. But of course, I could be wrong. Everything there could be absolutely true. It's absolutely impossible to know.
This is why I can't believe in any sort of God. I'm an empiricist. I can't believe in anything without evidence. Not really. This goes back to my whole philosophy that I've discussed oh-so-many times. Where everything out of my immediate sensory range does not exist. So right now, as I write this, none of you exist. It's a bit weird if you're...well, sane, but I like my philosophy. But yeah.
I can't believe in anything that I don't have evidence for. That's part of why I go to the youth group, part of why I chose this seminar topic. I'm trying to figure out exactly what's what in the universe at large, but none of the quote unquote "evidence" I find just doesn't cut it for me. Proof is very difficult to come by. With...Well, anything.
But that's what irritates me about people, they firmly believe in these things that they have literally no evidence to support. Because I can't. I can't believe in anything without this evidence. So it usually ends up bothering me when people demonstrate that they can indeed believe in these things without proof. But I guess that's why it's faith, isn't it? But I can't freakin' do that. I can't have faith in anything.
So...Could somebody, Dave, or Eric, or somebody, tell me exactly how it is that you can believe in something without evidence? I don't understand. You can't possibly know this for sure. So how can you believe, how can you have faith in these things?
F*** I'm tired. I don't even remember half the things I said up there. I'm just gonna go sleep, and hope that it makes some sort of sense.
Until next time,
Indeed.
~Kataron
Christianity, contrary to many people's opinions, is not "blind faith" (I mistyped while I was writing that, and almost said "blond faith". It's not that, either, I assure you). In fact, looking throughout history, Christianity has been believed by some of the most intellectual and intelligent people who have ever lived. Beyond specifically Christian faith, theism (the belief in God) of some sort has been believed by an even greater number of intelligent, thinking, and even empirical people.
But people, like my friend Nate, still believe that believing in God takes an enormous leap of faith, across a wide, bottomless chasm, with alligators in it. The leap is so dangerous or ridiculous in their minds, and impossible to actually make, that they don't even try.
However, throughout history, many of the brilliant men and women who believe in God, have thought out "proofs" that God exists (which is a bad term to describe them, since in contemporary usage, "proof" equates to "indisputable fact", whereas back in the renaissance era, when they were first known as "proofs", "proofs" merely meant "evidences"). Briefly, I'll examine the four major ones:
The Cosmological Proof
Initially presented by none other than Aristotle, the Greek Philosopher, this proof basically says that all matter comes from somewhere. Everything is caused by something. You're here, for example, because your parents fell in love, and, sparing you the details, had a baby. They're here because their parents did the same, and so on and on back to the original people. All life is the same, and so is all non-life. Everything that is around us had a beginning. Everything had a cause. Now, Aristotle says, we cannot keep going back forever with our causes. It is necessary that there be a First Cause--and that First Cause is what Aristotle called "God". So, in a nutshell, because there is a world, and that world had to come from somewhere, there must be a God to have made the world.
The Teleological Proof
Taking the Cosmological Proof one step farther, the teleological proof (yes, I know they have weird names. That's because philosophers love making up fancy-sounding names to make themselves seem even smarter) looks at this world, and sees how amazingly intricate and complex it is. That kind of complexity could not be the product of simple chance, but indicates a designer. Often this proof is known as the "Watchmaker Argument" because that is its most common analogy. If you found a watch lying on the ground, looking at its gears and springs and hands and numbers, and seeing how they all work together to make the watch keep accurate time, you would logically assume that someone designed and built that watch, rather than thinking that it was the result of some random convergence of metal pieces. So with the watch, so with the world: the way that everything works, from our solar system down to our DNA, and each piece fitting together and playing its part, indicates to us the presence of a Great Designer who made all of this. That Great Designer is God.
The Ontological Proof
This one is kind of my favourite, but not too many other people like it. Personally, I think that's just 'cause they don't get it. It was first thought out by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the Middle Ages. Basically, it goes like this: God is defined as "that which nothing greater can be conceived." That is to say, God is completely perfect, and if you listed a bunch of attributes or qualities, and compared which would be better, then God would possess the best attributes. So, what is better, for something to be physical or spiritual? Spiritual, therefore God is Spirit. What is better, for God to be evil or good? Good, therefore God is Good. What is better, for God to be all-powerful, or not? Obviously, all-powerful. And so on. Now, the clincher of this argument comes with the question, which is better, for this perfect being to exist, or not to exist? Obviously, such a being existing would be better than that same being not to exist. So since the definition of God used is "that which nothing greater can be conceived", and I can think of a God who does actually exists, and a God that is only imaginary, and that the imaginary God is obviously inferior to the real God, then, by definition, God must exist.
Think of it this way:
A: God = that something which nothing better could ever be thought up.
B: It would be better for something to exist than to just be imaginary
C: Therefore, if there is the choice between something which nothing better could ever be thought up, actually existing or not, then the one that exists is better than the one that doesn't
D: God, then, by definition has to exist.
I know, it's confusing. So on to the last proof:
The Moral Proof
This one was made popular by C. S. Lewis (The Chronicles of Narnia guy) in his book, "Mere Christianity". He points out that all people throughout the world have an inate sense of right and wrong. This sense of right and wrong is amazingly consistent throughout all cultures and all times, so much so that if your at the mall, trying to find a parking spot, and you are waiting for a person to get into their car so you can have their spot, and when that car pulls away, someone else swoops in and takes your spot, your immediate reaction is "That's not fair!" Why? Just because you didn't like what they did? No, but because you and the other person both recognise that your being there first entitled you to that spot. This premise of a moral law is how societies make their laws.
Now, the fact that each person is programmed wtih this law in their hearts is evidence that there is a Lawgiver who wrote that Law. Otherwise, morality would simply be a matter of choice, and there would be no ability to appeal to anyone's sense of fairness or decency--no one would have such a thing! So the fact that, whether we live by the morals we instinctively know to be right or not, we all know them, and therefore know that God has given them to us.
So this is some of the evidence for God. However, that evidence is "circumstantial." It proves that there is a likelihood of X conclusion, but does not do so without the possibility of other explanations. Without direct evidence, these proofs aren't enough to convict.
When we look at that bottomless pit of alligators that we call "faith", however, the logic of these and similar arguments drastically closes the gap. But as I said, the evidence could possibly be interpreted to fit different conclusions (the question isn't, "what's possible?" though, it's "what's most probable?"). So the great chasm is narrowed. For some people, it might be narrower than for others. The thing of it is, it's not closed. A leap of faith is still necessary.
But God is aware of this, and so He has taken it upon Himself to narrow the gap even further. He has, throughout history, revealed Himself to us--through prophets who speak in His name, through miraculous signs, and finally and most fully through Jesus Christ, who was God-in-the-flesh, who came to reveal the fullness of truth about God! Through that Revelation, God has closed the gap still further. Now the great Leap of Faith is much more of a simple step. But just as logic didn't take us all the way to belief, God doesn't reveal Himself so as to take away the necessity of faith. He makes faith in Him easier to have, but leaves faith as a necessary requirement. Why?
Because, as the Bible tells us in Hebrews 11:6:
Now it is impossible to please God without faith, since anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.So, in my mind, there are two options. Have faith and wait for greater evidence, or wait for greater evidence in order to have faith.
As a Christian, I chose route #1, and I believe that I got the further evidences that follow. Our good buddy, St. Anselm, when writing his proof (see the Ontological proof above), said this: "Credo ut intelligam." In case your Latin's a little rusty, that's "I believe in order that I might understand." Not much of an empiricist, he was. But he understood the truth that I've been trying to relate above. On the one hand, God has, as one writer has put it, "left His fingerprints all over the world." On the other hand, that same God, who longs to know us, paradoxically hides from us. Why? To see if we'll take that step of faith and seek Him. God is not an academic abstraction. He is a person, who desires a relationship with us. But we have to reciprocate that, and we do that by faith, and seeking Him. God is playing hard-to-get.
Think of it this way: popular culture, many movies, etc. and many people believe in the concept of a "soulmate." They believe that out there somewhere is the person whom they are destined to be with. Now, if that's true, and a person believes it, then they have a level of "academic" or "theoretical" certainty. However, unless that person, in believing this truth about their "soulmate", acts on that "faith" and tries to seek this other person out, they will never find their soulmate. If there is a soulmate for that person, and that person is destined to be with their soulmate, that does not lead to the conclusion that the soulmate will simply fall from the sky into their lap. They have to participate in the search. And, perchance the soulmate did happen to fall from the sky into the person's lap (maybe the soulmate's into skydiving), the two people must still continue to work in order to make a relationship work.
The prophet Jeremiah, speaking for God, says this:
"When you search for Me, you will find Me; when you search wholeheartedly for Me, I will let you find Me" (Jer. 29:13-14, emphasis mine).An atheist is not going to find God, unless he begins to search for God. But even in the searching, the atheist is no longer an atheist, because to search for something, you have to believe that it's there to find! The same is true for the agnostic. In some ways, the agnostic may actually be farther from finding the truth, because they, by definition, are committed not to a stance of "convince me", but "you can never convince me."
Only the romantic will find his soulmate, because he will be searching.
Only the theist will find God, because he will be searching.
God bless.
Labels: Apologetics, Faith, Personal Reflections
posted by Gregory at 3:58 p.m.
5 Comments:
Our world is so broken, we truly need someone, something to believe in. So many people today think there lives are not worth living, so if you are reading this right now you need to know you are loved, loved by the ONE who will never leave you, the ONE who will be a constant in your life. HE may hide from you but if you seek HIM, HE will be there for you. I know this is hard to believe, because I remember a time when I wasn't sure what was left, what was worth living for (and I had a family,friends, a boyfriend and everything I could ever want or need including a faith I had grown up with). But everything was too much, the fighting with my parents, the insecurities about myself and where I was going, the fear of rejection from my boyfriend and my friends for being who I truly was. I thought it was too difficult to go on and it would be better to stop letting everyone down. I want you to know it is worth it, there are so many reasons to be here and GOD reveals these reasons to us if we listen. Maybe just talking about your pain will help some one else feeling the same way. Perhaps you will make a difference that you don't even know is possible in someone else's life because GOD truly does have a plan for our lives. That is how I know GOD is real, much more real than anything else in this world, because He has shown me the ways in which I have changed the world, and shown me how different others lives would have been without me. Please let Him in so He can show you too. But most of all don't give up when it hurts and seems too much, know that there are so many people out there that love you including the most important ONE.
God job, Greg.
And kudos, anon.
-Eric
What is important to realise about these evidences, too, is that they work well together as a cumulative case argument. That is, they are the spokes in a large wheel converging on the hub -- which is to say, God.
For a more erudite perspective on this manner of viewing the traditional argments for God's existence look up Richard Swinburne (he's protestant, mind, but that's forgivable!).
And for interest sake, the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG, for short) is a very compelling evidence, though it is much more abstract than certain other empirical proofs, such as the cosmological, or teleological arguments. Here, the basis for intelligibility itself rests in the assumption of God's existence, for to assume otherwise removes the basis for any reasonable evidence of His existence in the first place. If you cannot establish a grounds for intelligibility, then evidence is a bagatelle. A presupposition of God's existence is therefore necessary for meaningful examination of other evidences that confirm the assumed fact. In this way, TAG is very closely aligned with the Ontological Argument (which is a beautiful argument, in my opinion).
Ah, Gregory! You have written about one of my favourite subjects: epistemological certainty and the existence of God. I'm a nerd, I know. But I'm the coolest nerd you know! Go ahead and try to prove otherwise, and I'll show you you're wrong!
God bless you, pal!
Christopher J. Freeman
Let's roll up to maaaaaaaaaake, a single star, in the skyyyyyyyyy.
*continues to sing Katamari Damacy themes*
Uh...thanks Nate...
...
Post a Comment
<< Home