Questioning the question: does God exist?
February 20th, 2010 § 11 Comments
An apologetic for apologetics
Does God exist? Good one! Or… maybe not. It will be hard to come up with a question to which there are more divergent answers. For one person it is self-evident that God doesn’t exist (Duh!). For another it is exactly the other way around (How can you live without Him?). But before we consider any answers think about this: Is one allowed to even ask a question like that as a Christian (except of course that the answer is a foregone conclusion in the first place)?
Upon closer inspection it becomes clear that what people believe about the supernatural and the meaning of the world they normally believe because they grew up in an environment where such beliefs were held either implicitly or explicitly. For instance, when you grow up in India chances are you will be a Hindu with a pantheistic (everything is god) look on life. When you grow up in Europe your chances of being agnostic (I don’t know what is true; that at least is true) are slightly higher than when growing up in the United States. That’s why it seems unavoidable that arguments are going to be brought to the table when a Christian wants to convince an atheist or an adherent of another faith of the truth of the Christian worldview. Just preaching the gospel and waiting for a miracle to happen isn’t going to cut it. So, does God exist? Absolutely and for the following reasons…
The validity of arguments
‘Wow, not so fast,‘ interrupts a sincere Christian, ‘is the sinful heart not simply too sinful and is this entire creation not so completely corrupted that argumentation is actually “not going to cut it”‘? Theologians have thought hard about this question. Apologist and theologian, Cornelius van Til, thought it wasn’t possible. If you want to argue with people, you first need to presuppose God otherwise all is in vain. His method became known as presuppositionalism. Earlier Blaise Pascal similarly said: ‘The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of‘, indicating that it isn’t simply a matter of reasoning.
Others didn’t quite agree with this. They refer to Romans 1: 19-20 where the apostle Paul writes: ‘For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.‘ If that is the case then there must be room to highlight those facts about God in creation and in human nature in order for people to reevaluate them. This has always been a strong tradition in both the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelical thinking.
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga goes even further. In order to function as a human being, he says, we make a lot of basic assumptions. We believe for instance that our senses provide more or less reliable information about the outside world and we simply have to trust our mental faculties for we have no way of proving they are right. These are properly basic beliefs. It is from where we start. Now the interesting thing is that according to Plantinga belief in God is similarly properly basic. We are ‘in our epistemological rights‘ (philosophical parlance for: justified) to believe God exists and start from there. You don’t really need to argue for it though one is free to do so if one likes.
Faith and Reason
‘But can we allow that,’ another concerned Christian intersects, ‘when we are dealing with arguments, aren’t we emphasizing reason to such an extend that faith looses out? Doesn’t the argument allow for too much autonomy of the mind, so that prevenient grace comes under pressure?‘ It is important to realize that faith and reason are not contradicted to each other. The famous adagium of Anselm of Canterbury ‘Credo ut intelligam‘ (I belief in order to understand), brings the two powerfully together. We may even turn the order around: ‘I understand in order to assent to faith‘. Understanding can lead to faith, though understanding itself is never enough. And when that happens, is that not a work of grace by God? I think it is.
Another thing is that in the New Testament the apostles used arguments whenever they preached the gospel. They did not see the two as opposed to each other. This is so easily overlooked. In fact there can be no proclamation without it being cloaked in a framework of logic and argumentation. Reason, faith and grace are God’s benevolent gifts to humankind.
Making God smaller
‘But simply asking that question ‘Does God exist?”,‘ a third Christian enters the debate, ‘is nothing less than blasphemous! We should be ashamed for daring to doubt God’s existence even if it is only for the sake of the argument.‘ Interesting point, actually. When one has come to understand just a little of how great God is it becomes almost a scary thing to questioning God’s existence. But on the other hand, how did you expect to reach people for Christ in our secular and increasingly post-Christian society? We have been commissioned to do so. We will have to stand next to them and ask the same questions that they will do when considering the case for God and Christ. Trust me, ‘Jesus loves you‘ isn’t going to do much good when people do not believe Jesus’ Father exists.
‘All good and well,‘ our Christian friend counters, ‘but arguments for God’s existence make God subject to the human intellect, don’t they’? Well, the answer is a resounding “No“! It is not the case at all that God’s existence is made dependent on our thinking – God exists apart from our minds and apart from our existence. Rather, through arguments, our mind may grasp something of the ultimate reality of God; an insight that hopefully does not get rejected but will lead to the submission of mind, will and heart of an individual to God.
In addition God is certainly not locked up or contained in our arguments as if with these arguments everything about God has been said that can be said. God is infinite in his being and attributes. In fact, the arguments can hardly surpass what God has revealed about himself in the Bible and in his Son, Jesus Christ. Yet, because that revelation is not understood by most people today we need the arguments now more than ever. Even though they merely scratch the surface of who and what God is.
So the human individual together with the created reality around us functions as a pointer to the eternal God. The apostle says that much in our passage in Romans 1. Some of the arguments for God’s existence offer us an analogy of God. They function like a metaphor. The grandeur of a mountain range refers to God’s greatness, the endlessness of space points to God’s infinity etc. Other arguments are more philosophical in nature. They lead in varying degrees to the necessary conclusion that God exists. God is not a being made subject to creation or human reasoning. The arguments rather provide a window on the One who is, who was, who will forever be. God made humans in just this created environment in order ‘that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him‘ (Acts 17:27).
For the glory of God
The tradition of arguing for God’s existence is a rich one. It goes back via Thomas Aquinas and Anselm to Justin Martyr and the other apologists of the second century AD. Those apologists sometimes mixed a lot of Greek thought with their theories, but they initiated the project of theology and spared the Christian faith the fate of an irrational esoteric religion. It is good news that a new movement of Christian Philosophers has sprouted since the last few decades of the 20th century which is re-formulating old arguments and formulation new ones. They are bringing the fruits of their labor to bear successfully on the academic world and beyond.
The arguments do more than simply provide a set of reasons why God exists. They help to defend the Christian faith as a coherent, non-contradicting worldview. That is in conformity with the imperative of 1 Peter 3:15: ‘but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you‘.
And that is what the question ‘Does God exist?’ is all about in the end. We want to see God acknowledged by the people around us so that faith in the living God will take root in the hearts of people who in turn will give God all the honor that is due to Him.
Rik, you may NOT translate this…
Thanks for this post, it’s encouraging to see others working hard to advance Christian Apologetics as a highly useful thing for Christians while still maintaining a strong view of faith.
I like this one, although I find that I had to re-read some parts due to the large words.
If the words are too large, you need to stand away a little. Great to meet you here Tim. Welcome.
If you doubt the existence of God you need to ask the question (not necessarily in words) to get an answer. If you firmly believe (or not believe) in God the question in fact is not a question as the answer is already there before the question is asked.
So for me the question is either useful or innocent.
If God does exist and you are not in the know, then asking the question is useful to the extent that you are willing to accept the truth where it leads. Most ask such a question with a prior commitment to an answer, some are really willing to let go of certainties. It takes courage as it might upset one’s world.
I don’t see how one could phrase a question without words. One even needs words to express the notion of not using words.
Yes, in fact the question becomes truly a question if you are willing to accept its sometimes very inconvenient outcome. Often the capability of truly putting a question is more significant and gets you a lot further than the actual answer that comes out of it.
Agreed, you cannot phrase a question without words. But in my view, the essence of a question are not the words itself. Often the phrase formulating the question does not cover the entire contents/meaning of the question itself (this is a personal matter, and a phrase can have a different contents/meaning for each person).
I would even say that on a personal level sometimes you don’t have to formulate a question in words in order to make it exist for you. Saying this, I might be making a mess of the definition of “question”, which might lead to confusion and ……..more questions.
Concerning the question “does God exist” I had some thoughts which I wrote down. I realize that the are not very relevant for the article.
I personally wouldn’t question the source of a genuine personal experience. I personally experience something that maybe others would call “God”. I know a “force” which I feel present inside me. This “force” in itself is invisible but through “communication” (in many different ways) with me it shows its presence. I can feel it is very positive and for me it has no limits.
Personally I call it “the subconsciousness”, a term which I found more useful than the term “God” in my concept of life and as a practitioner of N.L.P. and other psychological reference models. Of course this choice is very personal as it works for me. I think both the term “God” and “the Subconsciousness” are very much abused concepts as they are not easy to comprehend and go far beyond our rational capabilities.
If you would tell me that what I experience in fact is God I could say that that is fine with me as it is “just” another label for my experience. The experience or contents matters, not the name.
So I would suggest that in your case God definitely exists. For me (let’s say a non-religious person) and my experience I would say under certain circumstances it makes sense to use the term “God” although this might lead to a total misunderstanding. For me it is important to respect and compare each others experiences by using the different reference models. Just the labeling is fairly uninteresting.
Though we should respect each other’s genuine experiences, that doesn’t mean we cannot question their validity or truth. Any conception of God, any worldview, any supernatural experience, has to be willing to submit itself to questioning. Of worldviews we can say: Do they conform to reality, are they internally consistent, are they liveable? It is those sort of questions that help us forward in our search for truth and help us to disciminate between what needs to be accepted and what needs to be rejected.
I therefore reject the notion that one person has his truth and another person another (opposing) truth. Because if that were true, the opposite of this statement would be true as well.
I totally agree with the first part. Questioning is an engine for growth.
The problem with reality or God is that (for us) they exist by the means of perception. People from different cultures, different geographical locations and from a different century all have different perceptions.
This is why in my view the same Truth/God perceived by people from a totally different background (culture, age group, century, etc) will “look” different (will have a different internal representation). This can be a reason why every culture has (and needs) its own different religion. They perceive God/Truth in a different way, their way. Buddhists don’t even use the concept of God, but they have a very strong sense of truth.
Who is right? Maybe we are all right.
In my view, the bible, as many other religious references should be read in the context and spirit of its creators and from its own cultural point of view. Only then you will find the truth. The Bible is written in metaphors (as I understand it) Comparing it with our latest model of truth, modern science is useless, fairly absurd and doesn’t make science nor religion more valid.
Hi there, I’ve been lurking around your weblog for about a month now. So I just decided to stop lurking and say hi :)