Chapter 01.3 - Why Believe in God?
Why Believe in God? (Part III) The Argument from Ontology
This is the only rational argument that exists--that is, it does not begin with the visible world, but with a rational idea. Formulated by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) the argument can be summarized in a simple sentence: "There is that than which a greater cannot be conceived."1 Three simple statements indicate the scope of the argument: Man has an idea of a perfect being. Existence is an attribute of perfection Therefore, a perfect being must exist.
It is in this form that the argument has been most widely attacked. Not only in Anselm’s day but Aquinas and Kant rejected the argument because existence is not an attribute of perfection. An idea of a perfect 100 dollar bill in your wallet does not bring it into existence. Because of this fallacy, it is generally concluded that the ontological argument is of little value.
However, a defense of the argument has been made by Norman Malcolm. He argued that there are two arguments in Anselm. The first form of the argument is that rejected by Aquinas and others. The second form involved the phrase "necessary existence as a perfection." Thus, a necessary being is greater than if it does not necessarily exist. Within the definition of God as eternal, one logically sees the necessity of his being. Malcolm summarized the argument as follows:
If God, a being a greater than which cannot be conceived, does not exist then He cannot come into existence. For if He did He would either have been caused to come into existence or have happened to come into existence, and in either case He would be a limited being, which by our conception of Him He is not. Since He cannot come into existence, if He does not exist His existence is impossible. If He does exist He cannot have come into existence (for the reasons given), nor can He cease to exist, for nothing could cause Him to cease to exist nor could it just happen that He ceased to exist. So if God exists His existence is necessary. It can be the former only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or in some way logically absurd. Assuming that this is not so, it follows that He necessarily exists.2
The evaluation of the argument of Malcolm wind up being criticisms of logic. They focus on the process of reasoning and there are both supporters and opponents of the argument. What so few admit is the idea of a necessary being beyond the boundaries of the material. Again, the idea of a necessary being is rejected, but all philosophers must affirm necessary being of some kind. The debate is over what it is: God or Matter.3 The Kalam argument.
The Kalam argument is outlined as follows: l. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The Universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. This argument recognizes the need for an explanation for the existence of the universe It is the nature and purpose of classic philosophy arguments simply to state the problem, not to propose a systematic answer. Since we have already considered some answers from the sciences and found them lacking, there is only one other "cause" to consider. The Kalam argument points to the conclusion of an eternal God who creates not only the universe but life and time. Man is said to be the apex of God’s creativity because he reflects, in some small way, the rationality of his Creator.4 This argument takes on greater importance with the appearance of the Big Bang theory in physics in the modern era. Philosophers who have accepted the eternal nature of the universe are now faced with new data from physics and cosmology in which the universe has a beginning point. The cause for the beginning point needs an explanation. There are significant parallels between the Big Bang and the story in Genesis concerning the beginning of the universe. The Moral Argument
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) rejected the arguments of both Aquinas and Anselm, but he believed in God and did not wish to give up the idea of a Supreme Being. In his Critique of Practical Reason, he formulated two arguments that are similar. The first argument concerns the immortality of the soul which cannot be proven at all, but is, for Kant, a necessary idea. The argument is summed as follows: Man lives under a moral law which requires perfection. Since man does not achieve it in this life, immortality is required that the duty of man may be fulfilled in meeting the demands of the moral law.5 Some practical questions may be raised about Kant’s first argument. First, there is no visible moral law in nature and it may seem arbitrary to speak of one as Kant did. Second, why should man be given time to make up his failure? Without some Christian understanding of life after death, why postulate man’s survival at all? Third, why not let the judgement about man’s failure stand and simply say that he lost out in the race? Fourth, Kant ruled out forgiveness and grace and places life after death on performance which is contrary to Christian values. The second argument may be summed as follows: Happiness should coincide with the degree of morality. Unfortunately it doesn’t, yet man has a duty of pursuing the good. Then Kant said:
Now it was our duty to promote the highest good; and it is not merely our privilege but a necessity connected with duty as a requisite to presuppose the possibility of this highest good. This presupposition is made only under the condition of the existence of God, and this condition inseparably connects this supposition with duty. Therefore, it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.6
One of the objectionable features of Kant’s argument is that it is a use of God that is certainly contrary to the Biblical model of God. God is useful only for undergirding morality for Kant. Beyond that it is questionable whether God serves any use in Kant’s view of things. Another example of the moral argument is that of Hastings Rashdall (1858-1924) who drew on the idea of a standard of truth in all disciplines. Even though a discipline is floundering around in half-truths, there is an ideal to which it hopes to attain in truth. Rashdall argued that: the Moral Law has a real existence, that there is such a thing as an absolute Morality, that there is something absolutely true or false in ethical judgement, whether we or any number of human beings at any given time actually think so or not. Such a belief is distinctly implied in what we mean by Morality.7
Since a moral ideal cannot exist in material things, or in the mind of any one individual, Rashdall concluded that "an Absolute moral idea can exist only in a Mind from which all Reality is derived."8 Consequently, morality leads to the conclusion that God exists.
The success of Rashdall’s argument does not depend upon whether people follow a moral standard or not. Obviously many do not. The statistical report, based on what people are doing, does not negate the standard of what ought to be. Even in very primitive societies there is yet a basic moral standard. Although a society may think it good to steal, murder, rob, and lie to other groups, it does not permit the same action against members of its own group by members of its own group. There is a limit to relativity. On the other hand, it must not be concluded that a known universal ethical standard would result in everyone’s living up to it. The phenomenon of sin declares that people do not live according to what they do know. The Argument from Personal Experience This argument proceeds on the fact that men believe in God because they experience him. Some men believe because of intellectual reasons only, but others believe because of personal experience or encounter. Elton Trueblood has written, "The fact that a great many people, representing a great many civilizations and a great many centuries, and including large numbers of those generally accounted the best and wisest of mankind, have reported direct religious experiences is one of the most significant facts about our world." 9
Trueblood’s statement stresses man’s involvement in religion of some kind, but for a theist it has problems. There are large numbers of people who worship idols, others who are polytheists, many who are pantheists, and they are all religious. These various expressions of religious commitment indicate a searching for meaning in life and the search for the Creator. In this sense the religious person stresses empirical or pragmatic approaches. Gabriel Marcel wrote that "the mystics are perhaps the only thoroughgoing empiricists in the history of philosophy." 10 This implies that the religious person has an interchange with a fact (or better, a person) that is not measured by the five senses. Verification of experience is appealed to in terms of changed lives in the present life and fuller verification after death.
This argument is designed to indicate that experience of people leads to the conclusion that God exists. But it is one of the weaker arguments and has some problems with it. It proves more than a theist would like to argue for. How can one distinguish between the religious experience of a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew and Christian? All have religious experience and all should be accorded some truthfulness or validity according to the implications of the argument. The argument can be used to argue that all religions are the same and are of equal value. But it is more probable that all religions are false than that all religions are true.If the argument is to be defended it might be supplemented with a detailed anthropological study as seen in Schmidt’s "High God" idea in which the different religions could be traced to a common source of the idea of God. Perhaps then the argument would have some value for the theist. Without some restrictions and further limitations it is not of great value.
A. E. Taylor gives a variation on the argument. In music or art there is something "objective" that brings forth a response. There may be various interpretations of aesthetic experience, but the better interpretations are made by the "experts." We are not justified, however, in arguing that there is no beauty in the world because we do not recognize it, nor are we led to reason that every man’s experience of beauty is to be trusted. Although all can react to the "presence of beauty," the expert is more able to interpret the "presence" than others. In relating this to God, one might argue that there is something that is calling forth a response in man. In worship one responds to God in religious experience. God is the "given" or "the presence ", and men respond according to their sensitivity to him. Because some men do not respond or "see" him, one is not justified in concluding that God does not exist. Although there are possibilities of aberrations and being led astray, the overwhelming repetition of religious experience throughout the ages lends support to the argument. One objection to the argument of religious experience comes in the matter of the "who" of the experience. Can one be sure that it is God and not the devil one encounters. The answer seems to be that the moral transformation in the life of the person conforms to the nature of the person encountered. The aspect of a changed life for good could hardly be attributed to the demonic. The usefulness of the religious experience argument involves the possibility of directing others to the same experience. This is no basic problem, for within Christianity, as a single example, directions are given for becoming a Christian; i.e., repent (or turn from sin) and trust (or commit one’s life to) God on the basis of his promise in the gospel.
In the spirit of P.T. Forsyth, we can say that there is an authority for experience, but not authority in the experience. Forsyth meant that religious experience has its place, in relation to other things, but by itself it does not give authority for any conclusions about the truthfulness of God, gods, or whatever. The Argument from Practical Use A pragmatic test of truth is its workability. From the standpoint of God, there is a workability about belief in him. Religious belief and commitment mean the difference between a life that is meaningless and one that is filled with purpose and zest for living. "Atheism . . . has had little staying power. It has tended to take some of the morale and drive out of life and often leads to pessimism, cynicism, and a sense of futility."11 It is obviously true that what one believes about the existence of God, that is, whether he accepts it or not, makes a big difference in the manner in which he conducts his life. The practical use argument is that belief in God works. It has a certain practicality that results do follow from belief. William James noted examples of people who were sick in body and mind, but through commitment and conversion they became well. The conclusion to be reached from this profound experience is that "God is real since he produces real effects." This is impressive when someone says, "I used to be . . ." and now I am a changed person. It is difficult to argue with that. In a similar manner James argued that atheism has little help against pessimism, cynicism, and futility, whereas theism has much to offer in offsetting them. The argument proves too much and raises serious questions for the theist. First, a change of thinking will help most people. If you believe you are capable and confident you will probably work better in that direction. If you believe you are incompetent, you may help yourself in that direction. Second, it proves the truth of many kinds of gods. The polytheistic Hindu gets psychological help in his piety as well as the monotheistic Muslim. There is some value received, or neither would do what they do. Are they worshipping the true God? That can’t be decided on the basis of the argument. In light of these points it may be considered the most ambiguous of the arguments although it does make a point indicating that belief can affect how one lives. The Argument from Testimony
Testimony is a powerful but ambiguous argument. Take three examples, the first is a born again Christian who testifies that life before conversion involved the drug culture, destructive lifestyles that were destroying the person, and now that conversion has taken place, these are no longer practiced. The Zen Buddhist can say that he was living the same destructive lifestyle and since being a Buddhist these practices are in the past. The Mormon (Muslim, whatever) can say that their lifestyles were destructive before conversion and now they are living productive lives. Who is right? The testimonies are indisputable regarding the change. There is psychological change, but what is the issue of truth? The three testimonies contradiction one another in ideology. The issue has to be decided on other grounds than testimony. It is wonderful that life has changed for all of them, but it does not prove the rightness of their positions.
Existential Approaches
Blaise Pascal ( 1623-62) outlined some of the issues men face in considering God’s existence. "If there is a God," he wrote, "He is infinitely incomprehensible, since having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is." He then explains that Christians "profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason. They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness,"12 and then the world complains when they do not prove it! The underlying assumption for the above is the Christian assertion that God is hidden. It is for this reason that he cannot be proved or disproved. Yet, the paradox is that the Christian is called upon to prove something he cannot, says Pascal. The issue of God’s existence is not something about which one can be indifferent. Man must wrestle with the question of whether God is or is not! To which side will he incline? "Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason you can defend neither of the propositions." 13
There is no possibility of neutrality. One must wager on the question, for it is not optional. The wager is set forth in the following terms :
If I bet that God Isaiah: 1. And he is, then I have gained all. ( Remember the stakes involve eternity.)
2. And he is not, then I have lost nothing. (There is the possibility of gain if a good, moral, and "godly" life is valued more than an "immoral" one.) If I bet God is not:
1. And he is, then I have everything to lose including everlasting happiness. 2. And he is not, then nothing is lost except the possibility of temporal happiness if through this conclusion one finds no meaning to life. Therefore, if the odds are a billion to one, the reasonable man, the sensible man would bet his life on God. 14
It is obviously wrong to conclude that one becomes a believer for the sake of "fire insurance." But Pascal did believe that by following the way by which others believed, one would come to faith. Pascal anticipated the theory of feeling and will, later taught by a Danish physiologist, Lange, and an American, William James.
"It is the theory that the outward expression of any emotion leads to the experiencing of that emotion itself, and also to the ideas with which the emotion is associated. It is quite wrong to speak, in this regard of auto-suggestion. . . . If a man of good will expresses in practice the deeds and gestures which normally proceed from religious experience, there is opened in him a channel for the grace of God. There is thus provided a bridge between intellectual assent and actual experience of God." 15 The wager is designed, therefore, to put certain common facts into perspective. The truth is that man will love either God or himself, the idol. There is a certain monstrosity about self-love and man has not been created for such. Pascal would have agreed with Luther that man is going to worship something, but it is only a question of whom or what? God or an idol? Although the wager does not prove the existence of God, it grants that there is basis for believing in God. There are enough evidences and it is of such a kind that "it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them." 16 The evidence is sufficient, but it cannot be the basis for decision; man must wager.
One objection that is often raised against the wager is that one must make some side bets on the various gods. How do you know the right one? Can you make the wrong bet? Pascal dealt with this issue in terms of the criteria for the true religion. Using an inductive method of observation, he set forth a number of propositions concerning what the true religion should be like. These will be dealt with in a following chapter. At this point, one can say for Pascal that the real issue is Christianity or atheism, and none other. On the basis of the criteria for the true religion, the side bets are ruled out. Man must place his bet on the existence of God, who has revealed himself in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Another important man in the existential approach was Soren Kierkegaard ( 1813-55 ) . Kierkegaard has been called the father of the existential movement. Like Pascal, he concluded that reason is not supreme and cannot solve some of the issues of life. Concerning God’s existence, S. K. did not presume to prove it. He did point up some of the difficulties in believing in God. The problems are in man. God’s existence is assumed by S. K., but man does not believe in God for the simple reason that he rebels against all authority. He is unwilling to obey and hence insubordination is seen at every turn. The real problem is not due to intellectual doubt but rebellion. This is the personal confession of Kierkegaard in his Journals. In his Philosophical Fragments he treats the matter differently. Skepticism is not a result of a lack of evidence or facts.
"The Greek sceptic did not doubt by virtue of his knowledge, but by an act of will (refusal to give assent . . .). From this it follows that doubt can be overcome only by a free act, an act of will, as every Greek sceptic would understand as soon as he had understood himself. But he did not wish to overcome his scepticism, precisely because he willed to doubt. For this he will have to assume the responsibility; but let us not impute to him the stupidity of supposing that doubt is necessary"17 The real answer concerning God’s existence is to leave off proving and take the leap of faith. God will be there catching you.18 You can’t prove God, but you can experience him. One does not give reasons for loving someone, but one experiences love. Kierkegaard used the analogy of a boat run aground in the mud: "It is almost impossible to float it again because it is impossible to punt, no punt-poles can touch bottom so that one can push against it. And so the whole generation is stuck in the mud banks of reason; and no one grieves over it, there is only self-satisfaction and conceit, which always follow on reason and the sins of reason. Oh, the sins of passion and of the heart, how much nearer to salvation than the sins of reason."19 Kierkegaard begins with the Teacher (God), who gives the learner true knowledge of himself and makes him a new creature. The leap of faith is climactic for the moment and the future. The disciple "who is born anew owes nothing to any man, but everything to his divine Teacher."20 The Christological Assertion The line of reasoning is as follows. There once lived a man who claimed to be of the nature of God, equal with God, who spoke of God in intimate terms that no one else dared use. He disclosed the fact that God is love and seeks to redeem men. The account speaks of his miraculous birth; his deeds, such as healing the blind and maimed, raising the dead, and doing what no other person had ever done. Living among a fanatically strict monotheistic people who did not believe that every man is a part of God, or has a spark of divinity, he was condemned to death for his claims of equality with God and messianic claims. Had he simply died, it would be the death story of a misguided man who possibly had the quirks of a genius. But the claim is also made that he arose from the dead three days later. The resurrection took place as Jesus foretold and out of this event Christianity was born. Jesus was seen after the resurrection by Mary Magdalene, then by the "other Mary," by Cleopas and another person on the road to Emmaus, Simon alone, then the ten together, then eight days later with the disciples now including Thomas who doubted before, then the seven beside the Sea of Galilee and to "above five hundred brethren," then to James, the last appearance at the Ascension, and finally at the appearance to the Apostle Paul.
The resurrection becomes the capstone of the Christian belief and it becomes the cardinal element in the claim that Jesus is the Son of God, or God Incarnate. Jesus is the person who claimed equality with God, identified in a unique way with him as Son, and maintained that his main purpose for existence among men was to declare that God seeks to redeem them. This assertion is based on the following considerations. First, it is related to the fulfillment of a messianic prophecy declared centuries beforehand among the Jewish people. These prophecies will be listed in chapter VI. Second, it is maintained that the records of the life of Jesus were written down within a few years of his death and resurrection and not within centuries, as is the case of other religious leaders such as Buddha and Confucius. Thus, it is argued that the accounts were known even by the enemies of Jesus and evidence could have been set forth to the contrary were this the case. Instead, it is maintained that Jesus’ opponents were convinced that something unusual happened, but they were content to regard his work and person as demonic. Third, it is asserted that within his lifetime his monotheistic disciples acknowledged him to be the Messiah and the Son of God. The alternatives have been placed in the following ways:
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."21
Objections have been raised in every generation to the christological claim. Of recent, it has been proposed that the life of Jesus was an extended masquerade on the part of a person who became possessed with the idea that he was the Messiah. The masquerade was cut short when the soldier pierced his side to see whether he was dead or not, and the puncture killed him. Such reconstructions are not new, as the work of Albert Schweitzer has shown. 22 But there is a deeper issue that must be considered, and that is the question of records. Basically all that one can know of the life of Jesus is found in the New Testament. Can one trust the witness of the records? Unless one does, there is no way of even attempting to reconstruct a viewpoint to refute the viewpoint of the records. More fundamental are the problems centering around motives. Why would Jesus come to conclude that he was the foretold Messiah? Why would the disciples fabricate such a story of his resurrection when the accounts themselves admit that all of the disciples fled and were completely discouraged with the tragic turn of events? What of the resurrection? Would they have died for a lie?
Another problem is posed in the fact that there are always people who appear now and then maintaining themselves as God. How is Jesus any different? A defense of his claim would include the difference of his being a Hebrew where a Messiah was prophesied. He would also be different in his person and works. It would not be difficult to point up the moral and psychological problems of these claimants; whereas, it is maintained that Jesus was free of sin. This argument is based on the historical events of the past. The credibility of witnesses and their motives may be examined. The matter of deliberate falsification is out because there is nothing to gain: only loss of life. Probability is enhanced by one other element of the Christian view of things: the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The facts alone are not everything. One does not believe by facts alone. The witness of God’s Spirit is expressed in the statement that "no one can confess `Jesus is Lord’ unless he is guided by the Holy Spirit" (1Co 12:3 TEV). The facts are important and necessary but the ultimate conviction of their truth is related to God’s Spirit. That is the argument in its summary. We now turn to the objections. The most critical objections to the idea of self-revelation come from Hume and Flew. Let’s look at some of them. First, the idea of a miracle. Hume has a celebrated essay on miracles in which he maintained "a miracle can never be proved so as to be the foundation of a system of religion."23 Flew himself avers:
"The heart of the matter is that the criteria by which we must assess historical testimony, and the general presumptions which alone make it possible for us to construe the detritus of the past as historical evidence, must inevitably rule out any possibility of establishing, upon purely historical grounds, that some genuinely miraculous event has indeed occurred."24
Flew, in the spirit of Hume, indicated elsewhere in his book that the theist seeks to maintain a position in which nothing can count against his belief in God. But here we have a turnabout--Flew and Hume are maintaining that there is nothing that can be, or will be accepted as evidence for miracles, let alone God. If one is close-minded on the issues and rejects out of hand anything for the alternate position, there is not much that can be done to bring together a dialogue which Flew maintains he desires. The second objection is one that has relevance to all of the arguments. That issue is verification. Verification is the norm for Flew and others. It has the ring of scientific authority and brings the question into his framework: can you see, feel, touch, hear or taste God? If you cannot, you are talking nonsense. One has to admit straight out that verification of God in this manner cannot be done. If verification is restricted in this manner, many other things are also meaningless. The intangibles--truth, love, justice and the realm of values--are all meaningless on the standard of empirical verification. Verification is important for science, but even there it has its problems. Which theory of verification do we accept? There are several variations. If verification means reproducibility of an experiment, there is a variation of this in religion. A scientific experiment implies that everyone who wants to can follow certain steps and when this is done certain results will happen. In theology, the same holds true. If you follow certain steps and make certain commitments, then this will happen. By this means you will come to know God. This has been the underlying a basis of all mission programs in which people are converted in any religion. That is one kind of verification but it is not seeing God with the naked eye. On the other hand, there are things in science that are never seen, but are called verified. Speaking about God is somewhat like speaking about pain. We can describe it publicly and even invent words about it. But we never see the pain. Yet we know what other people mean as a general rule when they talk about a pain here or there in their body. We can talk about God, share common experiences, and all these are meaningful, but we don’t see God with the human eye. It is not the intention of the arguments to bring this about. The arguments give a reasonable indication that God is. But even the arguments are not enough, granting that they are valid without question. They may point in the direction of God, but we cannot be happy with an "inferred" God. What is needed is an encounter, a meeting with God. The search for God is one of the most important issues of life. If God is, then it is important to seek out the most important Person in the universe. Anything less than a Person is not worthy of the search. God defined as energy, or force is impersonal and could not involve worship. God defined as Mover or First Cause does not demand any more than an intellectual nod of the head. But God as Person would be significant. If God is Personal, then it does not seem fantasy that He who creates would also communicate. The Judeo-Christian faith as a view offers an aesthetically satisfying view of God. Only God as Person can reveal God. The greatest issue centers around the matter of two things: for the non-Jew, there is the pressing issue of naturalism versus supernaturalism. If naturalism is the full story of life, then the assertion is sheer myth. If naturalism is not the complete story then the possibility of theism raises its head again and within this concept is hidden the fact that the Creator might conceivably be interested in his world to redeem it. The other issue centers around the question that is of vital interest to the Hebrew. Was Jesus the promised Messiah or not? These questions must not be answered before a full examination of the materials is made. In this, one must consider the claim, the personal portrait of Jesus, the motives of the writers, and the possibility of self-communication of God if he exists. The Approach of the Bible In the last few pages, we have been considering materials not strictly based on reasons or conclusions drawn from observation of natural phenomena. It has served as a transition to the approach of the Bible. The Bible nowhere attempts to justify the existence of God. The existence of God is presupposed in the first verse of the Bible. Genesis Gen 1:1 implies the creativity, sustenance, and upholding power of God. A similar presupposition is stated in Hebrews Heb 11:6, where the necessity of faith is the prerequisite for coming to know God. An empirical suggestion is given in John 7:17, "If any man’s will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority." The book of Psalms contains further statements concerning experiential verification: Psa 50:15 says, "Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me." Psa 145:18 declares, "The Lord is near to all who call upon him, to all who call upon him in truth." Jeremiah offers further challenges: "Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things which you have not known" ( 33:3 ) . The empirical approach as it relates to these verses is not without prerequisites. Faith is required and there is no guarantee that God will reveal himself to a person without faith. The Bible gives another type of approach in its overall context. The history of Israel points up the fact of deliverance. The Bible sets forth a view of history in which God has been at work in the descendants of Abraham. The religious, historical, and geographical development of ancient Israel is such that the existence of the Sovereign God is pre-supposed. This line of argument is expressed in the story related by Karl Barth.
"Frederick the Great once asked his personal physician Zimmermann of Brugg in Aargau: "Zimmermann, can you name me a single proof of the existence of God?" And Zimmermann replied, "Your Majesty, the Jews." By that he meant that if one wanted to ask for a proof of God, for something visible and tangible, that no one could contest, which is unfolded before the eyes of all men, then we should have to turn to the Jews. Quite simply, there they are to the present day. Hundreds of little nations in the Near East have disappeared, all other Semitic tribes of that time have dissolved and disappeared in the huge sea of nations; and this one tiny nation has maintained itself. . . . In fact, if the question of a proof of God is raised, one need merely point to this simple historical fact. For in the person of the Jew there stands a witness before our eyes the witness of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and in that way with us all."25 As interesting as this is, there may be problems with it. It may be possible to improvise another explanation for the existence of the Jews. Nevertheless, the existence of the Jews is remarkable, and it does seem that a strange providence has been at work among them.
Another type of beginning point for belief in God contained in the Bible is miracles. Among older theologians, many things were proved by the use of miracles. In modern times, miracles have met with less acceptance among theologians. Yet in the Bible, there is significance in miracles. A basic presupposition of the biblical miracle is the closeness of God, but the Hebrews were prohibited the use of images and representations. Consequently, there was always the danger of the idea of God’s becoming a far-off, impersonal being who was disinterested in his people. The miracle in the Old Testament points up God’s concern and nearness.
However, the miracle in the Old Testament had certain limitations. The miracle did not necessarily validate the truth of a statement made by a man. Instead, the miracle only gave the right to be heard and then the listener assented or dissented to the message according to whether it corresponded with the Torah. The Bible recognizes the possibility of false miracles, or signs produced for the sake of exhorting the people to serve false gods. In the New Testament, the four Gospels accord the signs and miracles of Jesus with some content of evidence. Jesus defended himself and his authority from God in the Fourth Gospel by commenting, "Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe" (John 4:48). The conclusion of Nicodemus, as well as others in the days of Jesus, was that "no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him" (John 3:2). Even the enemies of Jesus did not deny that the blind had their sight restored, the deaf could hear, and the dead were raised. However, they interpreted all of these acts as demonic in nature rather than divine. The most significant miracle from which all others have their meaning is the resurrection.26 Paul speaks of Jesus as being the Son of God "in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:4). Indeed it can be argued that if Jesus was the kind of person he declared himself to be, then it would be very unusual if miracles did not take place. There is another direction that the Bible records concerning God’s existence. The creation is said to reveal something of God’s existence. The letter to the Romans declares, "For what can be known about God is plain . . . because God has shown it. . . . Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" ( 1:19-20). The same letter speaks of a primitive revelation in that "although they knew God they did not honor him as God" (v. 21 ) . A conclusion is reached that man knew God’s decrees but he did not practice them (v. 32). These are references to a revelation in the past. The biblical viewpoint is not as though a man were trying to prove the existence of something that does not exist, or that he has never heard of; instead, it begins with the declaration that God has declared himself in times past. The revelatory activity of God reached its climax in the declaration of himself through his Son--Jesus, the Christ. He has spoken in a decisive way. The book of Hebrews declares the superiority and finality of the revelation in the Son. In essence, God has spoken in many ways in the past, "but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son" ( 1: 2) . The very obvious point is that God has spoken in a meaningful way, which makes his mess- age one that is relevant to the needs of mankind. "
Concerning revelation as a possibility, Carnell wrote,"Although few really think about it, no cogent philosophic argument can be introduced to preclude the possibility of revelation." 27 Ultimately we have to conclude that we cannot really know anything about God unless God reveals it of himself. What I think about God is not very important to anyone else, and I ought to be duly surprised if anyone attaches real importance to what I think of him. If God exists, how-ever, it becomes very important what anyone thinks of him. Without a sure word from God himself, no one has any assurance that our thoughts of him correspond to his true nature. The witnesses of the apostolic period and the writers of the New Testament have preserved a word of the historic revelation, which is the foundation of the Christian faith. As we conclude this chapter, there are certain implications that need to be drawn.
First, although it is not possible to prove the existence of God, there are arguments that suggest the probability of his existence. In this sense, one might speak of the arguments as pointers, signs, hints, or "testimony" to God’s existence. It is not thus unreasonable to believe that a Supreme Being exists. The accumulative effect of the various arguments for God’s existence is significant, however.
Concerning evidence, Joseph Butler (1692-1752) wrote, "Probable proofs by being added, not only increase the evidence, but multiply it."28 Some philosophers attack the arguments with an attitude suggesting that it is unreasonable to believe in God at all. What they really want to point up is the inadequacy of the "proofs" as proof. While their mode of expressing their doubt about the usefulness of the arguments is not the best, these philosophers find real depth of meaning in the words of Pascal, "The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know." 29 The heart of man grasps for God. If man does not worship the true God he speaks of the abstract Beauty, or Goodness, or Nature, or elevates himself as the absolute.
Second, there are dangers that befall the use of arguments for God’s existence, One does not meet God at the end of the argument. It is possible that being religious and believing in a God can be a substitute for knowing the basic proposition of theology. Unless God reveals himself, we cannot know him in a meaningful redemptive sense. Biblical theology rests upon this proposition. Unless God has spoken, we are yet in the dark in our knowledge about him as well as yet being in our sins. It is not enough to accept the intellectual truth that God exists. The essence of faith is commitment to a person, not a proposition. Certainly there are propositions about the Person we need, but a proposition without the Person is meaningless. This is the sense in which Pascal’s statement is to be understood: that the god of the philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The god of the philosophers may be nothing more than an abstract or concluding argument for his existence, which is unexperienced, while the God of the patriarchs was known as the self-revealing God.
Third, a man’s life and destiny depend upon his answer to the question of whether God is or is not. If God has revealed himself in times past, then the responsibility of man to learn about him is great. It is not a matter merely of trying to escape from judgment but a matter of learning the meaning of life as well as what life really is.
Fourth, "belief in God enables man to explain what otherwise is unexplained or is explained in a less satisfactory manner. From this point of view, it satisfies an intellectual demand."30 There are problems in not believing in him.
Fifth, belief in God seems to be a necessary item for mental health and stability of the person. This is a problem concerning idols in its modern forms. When the "idol"--career, money, house, home , ambition--is swept away, the world collapses around the person. It is important to know the living God, who is not perishable, and to establish one’s life in the Absolute, which cannot be swept away.
Sixth, belief in God implies absoluteness in the moral realm , whereby man may judge himself and thereby check his human tendency to pride or egotism. At the same time, theism is the system that grounds ethics in a transcendent source. Without God as the source of values and ethics, relativism seems to be the alternative where each person does that which is right in their own eyes. The modern variation on this is found in post-modernism.
Finally, life can be lived without relation to God, but it is generally true that ultimately life is purposeless and a mockery without God. Without the fact of God, one feels that life is as a tale told by an idiot. There is a deep longing in the heart of man for God--a longing expressed in the words of Augustine:-- "Thou hast made us for thyself and we are restless until we rest in thee."
Addenda : (1)
Atheists are often inclined to point to the crusades and claim that religion does not allow for tolerance and dissent. We can admit that the Crusades and other evils done in the name of Christianity are wrong. They were contrary to the Gospel message of Jesus.
Atheists, however, are inclined to ignore the horrible deeds of atheists. Joseph Stalin is estimated to have killed about 20 million of his own people. Mae Tse-Tung is responsible for the deaths of an estimate 35 million Chinese people. Adolf Hitler killed 6 million Jews in Nazi death camps in WWII. Pol Pot’s reign of terror involved the murder of 2 million of Cambodia’s 8 million people. Idi Amin of Ugandan murdered 400,000 Ugandans during his tyrannical rule.
We don’t know yet how many Saddam Hussein is responsible for in his 24 year rule. The numbers who died in the crusades is a drop in a thimble in comparison to these murders.
Addenda (2) An interesting change has taken place since this was first written Antony Flew has changed his position from being one of the best known atheists to a believer in God. He describes himself as a deists like Thomas Jefferson, and has come to regard the theory of evolution as indefensible since the discovery of DNA. This change was announced in December of 2004.
Addenda (3) There are severe problems with pantheism. While it may be popular with the "pop psychology" crowd it has serious problems intellectually. First, if everything is Brahma or God, there is a spiritual determinism as deadly as a mechanistic determinism in which there is no real freedom. Freedom is an illusion. Second, if Brahma is everything there is no real individuality. Personhood is an illusion. Ironically, insisting upon your personhood is an obstacle to nirvana.
Third, if Brahma is all there is, then evil is an illusion, because Brahma is supposed to be all good. Therefore, the terrible evils that men do to one another are not really evil, but erroneous thinking. (This is one of the conclusions also of the Christian Science movement.) Fourth, if there is no real freedom, there should not be any responsibility for anyone’s actions. Fifth, the spiritual determinism is manifest in the caste system in which people are born in the castes because they deserve that low or high caste. Attempting to reform the caste system goes against Brahma, the spiritual determinism in the world. These are just some of the issues in pantheism.
Chapter I, part 3 1 St Anselm, Proslogium, trans. by Sidney N. Deane, LaSalle,Ill: Open Court Publishing Co., l959, p.7
2 Norman Malcolm, "Anselm’s Ontological Argument" in The Ontological Argument, edited by Alvin Plantinga, Garden City: Anchor Books, 1965, p. 146.
3 See also The Many-faced Argument, edited by John Hick and Arthur C. McGill, New York: the Macmillan Colossians, 1967, for other diverse reactions to the ontological argument.
4William Craig Lane and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and the Big Bang, (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1993)
5 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. by Lewis Beck, New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Colossians, 1956, pp. 126-127.
6 Ibid., p. 130
7 Hastings Rashdall, "The Morals Argument," in The Existence of God, edited by John Hick, New York: The Macmillan Colossians, 1964, pp.148-149 8 Ibid., p.150.
9 Philosophy of Religion, (New York: Harpers, 1957), p.145 10Royce’s Metaphysics, trans. V. and G. Ringer (Chicago: Henry Regnery Colossians, 1956), p. 12.
11 Harold H. Titus, Living Issues in Philosophy (New York: American Book Colossians, 1964), p. 439.
12 Pascal, op.cit., p. 80
13Ibid.
14Ibid., p. 81 15 Emile Cailliet, Pascal, The Emergence of Genius (New York: Harpers 1945), p. 107 16 Pascal, op. cit., p. 185.
17 Soren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments, trans. David F. Swenson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1936), pp. 67-68.
18 Ibid., p. 34.
19 Alexander Dru (ed.), The Journals of Kierkegaard, (New York: Harpers, 1959), p. 214.
20Philosophical Fragments, p. 14.
21 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: The Macmillan Colossians, 1960), p. 41.
22The Quest for the Historical Jesus trans. W. Montgomery (London:Adam and Charles Black, 1948) 23 Flew, op.cit., p.145, a quote of Hume.
24 Flew, op.cit., p.145 25Dogmatics in Outline (New York: Harpers, 1959), p. 76.
26 A stimulating work on miracles is the work by C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1947).
27 E. J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Colossians, 1948), p. 175.
28The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed (J. M. Dent, Everyman Library), p. 217.
29 Op. cit., p. 95.
30 Titus, op. cit., p. 442.