Is there rational evidence
for the
existence of God?
Premise
On college campuses, I frequently attract attention to my outdoor open
forums but putting up a large, challenging sign that says in big bold
letters: "Atheism Is Inconsistent."
The sign is not intended as an insult. It is instead an attempted
return to the rich heritage of universities in which different
philosophies were constantly tested and debated. Debates can be done
civilly, with respect, although I must admit that these days the
appearance of such a sign looks unusual and provocative. Still, it does
bring people around. Before long, I am confronted by that first brave
soul, usually some confident looking intellectual who is just ready to
teach me a thing or two. "Why is atheism inconsistent?" he asks.
"Because nobody lives as an atheist," I say. "If we cannot live
according to our own philosophy, the philosophy becomes questionable."
"I live consistently as an atheist," he answers. "I don’t
believe
in God. I don’t attend church. The Bible has nothing to do
with
my life."
"I believe you. I believe you sincerely think that God
doesn’t
exist. I believe you live your life seldom, if ever, thinking about
God. But if God did not exist, certain other truths would follow.
Neither you nor anyone else live consistently with the implications of
His nonexistence."
"What do you mean by that?"
The implications of God’s nonexistence
There are only three possibilities that account for our universe. Any
theory, scientific or philosophical, would have to fall under one of
these broad categories.
A. It came about by accident, apart from a creator.
B. It always existed, apart from a creator.
C. It has a creator or creators. (It is easy to assume with our bias
that creation was the work of a monotheistic God. To enter this
discussion with an open mind, we must admit the initial possibility of
several creators. For the sake of easier communication however, we will
refer to the idea of "creator or creators" with the familiar word,
"God" and the familiar gender, "He").
Theories A and B would indicate that life is meaningless. Our intuitive
and universal belief that life should have meaning had to come from
somewhere. Even those who aren’t searching for a general
purpose
to life think often about personal value. The very idea of such value
had to have a source. Therefore, we can conclude that value and meaning
came from a source outside of ourselves. Theories A and B do not
account for such possibilities. For this reason, we are left with
Theory C; "Some kind of God exists."
Defense For the Premise
People claim to live without a sense of God, but the real truth of the
matter is that no one lives as if he/she were here by accident.
When asking a skeptical science student how our beautiful and
complicated world came about by mere chance, I was exposed to an
interesting answer; "Look, it took billions and billions of years. It
only makes sense that things would finally come out right."
"What do you mean by ‘right?" I said, "If life is an
accident,
there is no such thing as right and there is no such thing as wrong. If
life is an accident, what is, just is. All opinions about right and
wrong would be just that, opinions."
Do you consider yourself to have personal worth? Do you attach
importance to your life? Would you expect from others, the same
respect, appreciation, love and acceptance that they would expect from
you? Do you feel a need to discover personal gifts and talents so as to
make a valid contribution of some sort? Would you be bored and
discontent doing unfulfilled work? Would you be satisfied with mere
survival apart from happiness? Is happiness possible apart from what
was just mentioned? If not, then we stand in full agreement. Without
personal value, life is chaotic.
At the same time, if humans don’t have a universal purpose,
there
is really no such thing as genuine value. Value becomes a mere
invention, a hopeless dream. All that we work for, fight for and stand
for is ultimately unimportant. Even if we can’t find this
purpose
behind life, the acceptance of a mystery is preferable to disbelief.
Without such meaning, individual pursuit turns into vanity. We very
much like to feel that someday, somehow, our experience will count for
something. But without God, such an idea is nonsense. Why? Because
there can never be a purpose behind accidental creatures. Just think:
Success, freedom, human rights, none of these "virtues" have any
coherence apart from the notion that we are genuinely precious.
"Well maybe life is an accident. Maybe we simply create value to enjoy
ourselves more."
Why does one need to create value to enjoy himself more? If we really
don’t have value, where did such a preposterous idea
originate?
"Maybe our thoughts of value were also an accident. Not everybody
agrees as to what is important and what isn’t."
Certainly variations exist, but we agree on more than the average
person takes time to notice. The ultimate certainty for human worth is
frequently ignored, yet obvious as your own thumbnail. I am referring
to the conscience, that inward reflection appraising all thoughts, all
motives and all actions. With unexplained intuition, people sense a
responsibility to live with ethics. This is a firm contradiction to the
theory of chance existence. If my neighbor is a mere accident, I owe my
neighbor nothing. I am without moral obligation. After all, where would
a mere fluke obtain the right to pass judgment? There could be no
standard with which to measure his/her idea. Let us, for a moment,
examine the obvious. Why would we consider it despicable to lie, cheat,
steal or murder? Why does one feel bothered over a selfish,
inconsiderate decision? In fact, why should it be inhumane to walk out
on the street and shoot the first person we see?
"Oh come on. Of course it would be immoral to kill. What right do I
have to shoot another human being?"
A good question. What right do you have? But finish your question. What
right does the victim have to not be shot? Does this challenge sound
horrifying? Only because the world wide condemnation of murder is
outrageously clear. Now think for a moment and try to analyze the
situation. What really makes an action good or bad?
Once, while sparring with an atheist, I said to him, "If I were to
conduct an experiment and steal your pencil, I could actually defend my
move on the basis of logic alone. In fact, it would be impossible to
condemn the theft by way of a proven standard. You will, of course,
tell me how wrong it is to take what belongs to another. But such
declarations flow from mere assumption. Could I not question your
starting point? Why is it wrong?"
"It’s wrong because stealing is against the law," he replied.
"But people willingly chose to establish those laws. Remember, moral
presuppositions existed before the law was invented. As another person
here by accident, no better and no worse than anyone else, I challenge
those presuppositions. No, the law will not do. I will need a better
reason if you want your pencil returned."
"Law or not, everyone knows that it’s terrible to steal."
"How do we know? The argument of ‘everybody says
so’ can
lead to frustrated, circular reasoning."
"But these people are bearing witness to an obvious truth,
‘Stealing is wicked and corrupt.’"
"All you are saying is that stealing is evil because stealing is evil.
Again, this is not an answer."
"Here’s a reason: We should respect our fellow man."
"Why should we respect our fellow man?"
"Because people have rights."
"On what authority do we assume that people have rights?"
Do you see my point? We could go on for days and never get anywhere.
Some of life’s most basic facts are really subjective
unexplained
feelings. This does not mean that the feeling is imaginary or mistaken.
Not at all. We don’t ignore our sixth sense simply because it
can’t be analyzed. It suffices to say that our knowledge of
ethics is unaccompanied by reason.
To live consistently as an atheist, one must admit that all morals are
invented. One must deny the validity of a universal moral standard
residing in every conscience. In short, one must become a Moral
Relativist. But Moral Relativism is quicksand. Nobody can live that way
consistently. Sometimes a philosophy sounds clever in the classroom,
but as soon as a student walks out the door of this classroom and finds
that his bicycle had just been swiped, he no longer feels so
sophisticated about the origin of ethics.
I usually meet moral relativists in the context of religious
discussions. Sooner or later in our conversation, they express concern
about religious hypocrisy. I always ask "Are you morally outraged by
religious hypocrisy?" When they answer "Yes," I say, "How can that be
if there is really no such thing as morals?"
Forgive me for using more graphic and horrible examples: If someone
broke into your house and murdered one of your loved ones right before
your eyes, would you say to yourself. "Well, as one accident to
another, I guess I can’t be dogmatic here. In my opinion,
what
this person did was wrong, but since that is only an opinion, who am I
to judge?" I don’t think you would react that way. But such
would
be the consistent reaction of a Moral Relativist.
The last time you read in the papers that a woman was raped, did you
think deep inside, "Clearly that rapist had a different set of values
than me. Oh well." I know. This would sound like a joke if it
weren’t such a disturbing illustration. Of course you
didn’t react that way at all. You cried out with indignation.
You
said, "This evil person must be brought to justice!"
There is no logical explanation for the conscience. An action is wrong
simply because it is wrong. That’s all we know. Further
information has never been needed to persuade us of the right decision.
Looking only at ourselves, we come face to face with a most baffling
mystery. This is where a creator moves easily into the picture. Perhaps
our joint, intuitive sense of judgment and accountability finds origin
in a Being who will literally hold us accountable. It would be
difficult not to at least consider this possibility. The illogic of
morality as an end in itself takes on a whole new light when we
consider a probable source. We are now drawn back to a closer
examination of the creation/accident question.
The conscience will immediately condemn any individual who fails to
treat his fellow man with love and respect. This awareness of "due
respect" supports the certainty of human value. We already established
that value could not be authentic apart from a universal purpose.
Simple as it sounds, we have stumbled upon a path for the searching
soul. One can easily move from morality to value to purpose to a God
who established this purpose.
"Hold on. This is sliding by just a little bit too fast.
Let’s
back up a minute. The conscience seems to be your focal point. I can
concede the likelihood of God if there were no other explanation for
morality. But many people pose plausible ideas for the birth of
standards."
The general humanistic explanation is commonly called The Wolf Pack
Theory. The theory goes something like this: A long time ago, society
learned that in order to survive, it would be mutually beneficial for
people to treat one another with consideration. Laws were introduced in
the event that some individuals did not wish to reciprocate. In other
words, mere convenience is mistakenly called "morality". It’s
not
that I sense any inherent value in humans. It’s just that I
treat
you well in the hopes that you will do the same to me. The conscience
is a habitual system of thoughts, derived from the "wolf pack."
This theory can be easily tested. First of all, those who appeal to the
explanation, frequently do so in the name of relativism for the purpose
of excusing some alleged sins. "Since morality isn’t real,"
they
say, "I’m entitled to develop my own rules. You therefore,
have
no right to judge my actions." But if it is wrong for me to judge, then
there is such a thing as wrong. With the same breath in which morality
is questioned, morality is confirmed.
Another problem with the Wolf Pack Theory is that frequently people do
convenient things at other people’s expense. They still feel
guilty. Where did the guilt come from if self interest and convenience
are supposedly the whole reason we even have standards to begin with?
It’s easy to talk about cave men and the origin of laws, but
the
truth is, I have only the experiences of my own life with which to
decide what is right or wrong.
Supposing you are undercharged ten dollars by the cashier at a grocery
store. You know that it will not be discovered until the end of the day
when they total the register. You will not be caught. You can get away
with this. What is the convenient thing to do? The convenient thing is
to keep the money, of course. But would this descion make you feel
guilty? If so, how do you explain your guilt?
"Brainwashing could explain the guilt. It may be that people feel bad
for simply acting contrary to the very way they were brought up. The
origin of this standard is something they never questioned."
People who ask for evidence of a God, usually consider themselves to be
free thinkers, and I agree with them. This sudden, about face,
insinuation that they are actually brainwashed is most interesting.
After all, once we realize we were brainwashed, we are not brainwashed
any more. Therefore, we should be able now to dismiss the voice of our
conscience and sleep well at night. Try to imagine yourself keeping
that money from the grocery store without guilt. The guilt should not
be there. Supposedly you were just brainwashed into believing that it
is wrong to rip people off, and you have now risen above such a
delusion.
"Some people do commit crimes without any feelings of remorse."
Yes, and there is a name for such people. We call them psychopaths,
implying that there is something terribly wrong with their minds. A
psychopath is one with a warped or broken conscience. Calling something
broken is not the same as implying that it doesn’t really
exist.
The very label psychopath demonstrates that people really do see the
conscience as something genuine, but malfunctioning, in a particular
case. Likewise, some are born without an ability to walk, but we
don’t take that to mean that legs are only imaginary.
"But many who have a working conscience still live immoral lives."
That is the greatest argument that we didn’t invent our moral
standards. If we were going to invent something, wouldn’t we
invent something we could live up to better? Ever since the traceable
beginnings of history, the world has known war, crime, greed, hatred
and bloodshed. Our technology has improved, but our nature is barbaric
as ever.
For a while, it was popular to believe that our species was evolving
into a more civilized, compassionate being. The Nazi holocaust
completely obliterated this fantasy. It made Nero’s Rome look
like a picnic by comparison and yet it happened in the twentieth
century. People representing every range of career, personality, age
and social class performed deeds that stunned the world. The world
should not have been shocked. When the pressure is turned on,
man’s true nature erupts to the surface like deadly molten
lava.
People experience a wickedness which they never thought possible. Those
who live in a peaceful environment can easily submerge this evil side,
but the evil remains.
Even in everyday life, we see people making selfish, callous decisions
all the time, while the conscience tells us not to behave that way.
This suggests that the conscience is coming from some entity outside of
ourselves.
"Isn’t it true that different societies produce different
morals?"
Yes. But almost every single culture at least agrees that people should
be treated with respect.1 This is the one moral which is universal. For
example, in some middle eastern countries, it is considered polite for
dinner guests to burp after a meal while still sitting at the table. In
America, that would be considered impolite. What’s
interesting is
that both cultures agree that people should be polite.
"What about racist organizations or those older societies which
corporately enslaved others? Here, we do not see even the standard of
respect."
They aren’t obeying the standard but the standard to respect
people still exists. What we see is a redefinition of the term person
or at least the term good person. When slavery or any other human evil
is justified, some kind of rationalization occurs. Hitler succeeded in
recasting the Jews as villains before persecuting them. He assumed that
such propaganda was necessary. He did not assume that he could just
kill Jews for no reason and have nothing to answer for. African
Americans were labeled as sub-human by many in the Pre-Civil War
South.2 Why? Because for wealthy slave owners to admit that all people
were the same, would be to admit that slavery was evil. Humans are
notorious for figuring out ways to disobey their consciences.
It is true however, that certain types of brainwashing do occur when
rationalization is taught. Mark Twain illustrated this truth in
Huckleberry Finn. Young Huck, because of his background, felt guilty
for helping his slave friend, Jim, escape down the Mississippi, because
he had always been taught that to assist a runaway slave was wrong. At
the same time, Huck knew that he would feel guilty for refusing to help
poor Jim. What was confusing for a young boy, need not be a mystery to
us. We see the brainwashing of a cruel, slave trading society, against
the accurate, natural principle of love and kindness.
Granted, individuals are exposed to contradictory influences and a
large panorama of teaching, but this antithesis, at the very best,
would create neutrality. We add to this neutrality, a rebellious period
in which children question most, if not all, of their values. The
rebellion is generally followed by a more mature time of inventory.
People ultimately pick and choose. A specific selection is made
concerning which standards will remain or disappear. There must be some
underlying feeling on which this choice is based. If a woman agrees
that lying is wrong, there was something in herself that provided a
comparison.
Meanwhile, let me bring attention to the fact that our very
condemnation of certain evil societies also argues against the Wolf
Pack Theory, for according to Moral Relativists, whatever a society
decides to do cannot be questioned. Why then, do we morally renounce
the gladiator games of ancient Rome or the slave based economic system
of the Pre-Civil War South? Are we not assuming a universal standard
which transcends culture?
I once asked this question to a student who claimed that the conscience
was a human invention to help society function.
"So then," I said, "you have no problem with the early slave states,
for they got together as a culture and decided that there was nothing
wrong with owning other human beings as property. In fact, the
institution of slavery was very convenient, for it boosted the
prosperity of the South."
Wanting to be consistent with his earlier point, the student finally
said, "I suppose that would be true."
"Let’s be clear," I said "Let’s make sure there is
no
misunderstanding. Are you saying for the record that there is nothing
wrong with slavery so long as a society agrees that there is nothing
wrong with it?"
"I guess I am saying that."
"I don’t think you really feel that way. You are claiming so
now
to win an argument, but if we had met in a different context, and we
were merely discussing racism or politics apart from philosophy, there
is no way you would assert that slavery can be justified in any
situation."
"Sure I would."
"Really? Ok. Let’s try an experiment. You are on your way to
class. I want you to ask the professor for just one minute of class
time before the lecture begins. I want you to look your fellow students
in the eye, and say to them (without telling anyone about the context
of our conversation), ‘I just want all of you to know
something
about me. I do not believe that there was anything wrong with slavery
in the Pre-Civil War South, because a certain culture had made a
decision about morality, and I believe we should respect the varied
opinions of all cultures.’ Would you be willing to give that
announcement?"
He looked at me for a second and then said in a very cocky voice,
"Yeah! Yeah, I’ll go say that."
"Ok, I’ll be out here tomorrow with this same book table at
1:00.
If you come back and tell me you made that statement, I won’t
call you a liar. I’ll believe you."
We made the appointment. I never saw him again. I’ll eat my
hat
if he made that statement. He discovered that day that he did indeed
believe in the value of people, a value which would be impossible if
life were an accident.
"Okay, I agree that life would have no real meaning if we are
accidental. But what about theory B? Supposing the universe is
eternally existent with a meaning inherent in itself? After all, people
refer to God as eternally existent. If God’s meaning can be
eternal, why can’t the same be true of our universe?"
Would a timeless existence apart from God explain the conscience? Not
at all. Rules do not float around a godless universe like alphabet
soup. Ethics are not interwoven with inanimate objects or chemical
reactions. There can be no such thing as a mindless moral principle,
because morality is bound up with personality. It is a running
commentary on how personalities interact.
Speaking of human personality, it contradicts the idea of an eternal,
godless, impersonal universe. Personality had to come from somewhere.
Something had to always exist. You can’t get something out of
nothing. No one will argue this point. It doesn’t take much
stretch of the imagination to conclude such an obvious truth. Now then,
if something had to always exist, this something had to be a thinking,
feeling, sentient personality. If not, we would be at a loss to explain
where personality came from.
"Personality could have evolved."
Evolution is only an unproven theory. Even if the theory is credible to
you, consider the fact that there are many Theistic Evolutionists,
scientists who believe that for things to be constantly evolving from a
lower order to a higher order, some type of supreme being must be
ushering life along according to a strategy. Charles Darwin himself
believed in God and did not write Origin of The Species to disprove
God’s existence.3 But if you are talking about an evolution
that
moves according to randmoness and chance, we have a serious problem.
Whatever the theories as to how many billions of years it took, you are
still claiming that ultimately, the personal came from the impersonal.
That makes no sense according to any logic I ever heard of. Also, an
impersonal universe would have no meaning, leaving human life, once
again, as an accident.
"Maybe we are all part of some eternal consciousness that is merely
part of the universe."
One would ask how finite people received an eternal nature and entered
an eternal universe. All human beings have origin as well as death, two
obvious mortal qualities. If we want to suggest that the first humans
did not have parents we are either affirming that they were created or
suggesting that they themselves were without a beginning. Either way,
we have brought a God back into the picture. At the moment, we are
trying to imagine life without that possibility.
"OK, maybe not eternal people, but perhaps an eternal underlying force
of some sort. Maybe this unseen power holds the universe together and
supplies meaning."
We would at once ask if this power has feeling and intellect. If not,
where did feeling and intellect come from? We are suggesting chaos and
accident again. A power that arranges things must do so according to a
plan. Without the plan, there is no point to the arrangement. With the
plan, we are back to a personal power, a creator of some quality.
Let’s face it: It really makes no sense to leave out God when
discussing the meaning to life.
"But many seem to live sensible lives without even thinking about God."
This is quite true. People frequently take the heavy questions for
granted and concentrate instead on surface living. I once asked a
college student if he ever thought about the meaning of life on a
deeper level than school, work or socializing. He responded by saying,
"What else is there?" The ability to ignore a question does not
invalidate the answer.
Footnotes:
1) The Dubians, of Dubu Island, off the Southern shore of eastern New
Guinea, have a rather unusual social system, one that people sometimes
point to as evidence of a society which does not believe people should
be respected. It seems, believe it or not, that the Dubians praise
treachery and bad will. If, for example, one chooses to kill another,
he should eat and drink with him first, so that the murder will seem
especially traitorous. The Dubians have no chiefs, and no organization
to speak of, but instead live in virtual anarchy. (Ruth Benedict,
Patterns Of Culture pp. 130-131).
It is important to note that the near by neighbors of the Dubians
consider them to be treacherous and the Dubians themselves, in order to
praise treachery, are admiting in their own unusual way, that treachery
is evil. Their choice to willfully pervert standards does not disprove
anything I have said about a universal knowledge of right and wrong.
2) The Supreme Court’s fateful, Dred Scott decision of 1857
ruled
that black slaves were,in fact, non- human and therefore the property
of their owners, even if they should escape and make their way to the
North.
3) Although he still believed in God when he wrote Origin of the
Species, late in life Darwin had many doubts about the God of the Bible
and considered himself to be an agnostic. This belief, however, still
maintained that some kind of God might exist. Darwin stopped being a
Christian partly because of the death of his daughter and not because
of the theory of evolution alone (Rebecca Stefoff, Charles Darwin and
The Evolution Revolution, Francis Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles
Darwin p. 61, 68-9).
Although I myself do not believe in the theory of evolution, it should
still be pointed out that Genesis was not written as a science book but
rather as a history of the people of Israel. Only the first three
chapters talk about the creation of the world and the fall of human
beings into sin. This tells us something about the priority of the
writer. He was obviously giving a quick review of an oral tradition
already known to the people. Only when Abraham comes on the scene in
chapter 12, does the narrative slow down and begin to give intricate
detail. We conclude that specifics about creation were not the
writer’s intention.
The first chapter of Genesis is written in a style of writing known as
Hebrew Poetry. It is not seeking to give any kind of order to creation,
as evidenced by the fact that the world exists with water and
vegetation prior to the creation of the sun (Gen 1:14). The word for
day (yom) is a Hebrew word that did not have to mean a literal 24 hour
day but could also be referring to an event (Joel 1-3). This poem then,
could simply be God’s way of discussing different events in
the
stages of creation.
The Bible portrays God as being completely removed from time ( 2 Peter
3:8, Revelation 13:8). Time is a human limitation. When we ask whether
it took God six days or six million years to create the world, the
question is irrelevant. In fact, it took God no amount of time at all
to create the world, because God does not exist in time. To speak at
our level, God is using language we will relate to. Since we live in
time and space, it is possible that a very long process over the years
(as we understand years) created the world and slowly brought about
different forms of life.
Genesis then, leaves room for the theory of evolution or, perhaps, a
better theory. I personally would put my emphasis on the words "perhaps
a better theory" but for now, belief in an old earth along with
Darwin’s theories, does not contradict the Bible in any way.
More Questions
|
Have your own question?
questions@bobsiegel.net
This is a brief
excerpt from a larger book.
For a fuller treatment of this subject as well as a better context, see:
I’d Like To
Believe In Jesus, But…
(The harder, less frequently discussed questions)
By Bob Siegel
Published by CSN Books
Copyright © 2007 by Bob Siegel
All Rights Reserved
Published by
Campus Ambassador Press
Copyright © 1999 by Bob Siegel
All Rights Reserved
This article is not to be reproduced without written permission from
the author. |
