The Basis for Belief: Part 1
Honzo December 26th, 2007
A while ago, I was asked why exactly I believe. I have been pondering this the last few days and I think I can give a semi-intelligible answer. If you had asked me this a few years ago, I would have given my best modernist response. You all know how it goes, right? First, you begin with logical proofs of God’s existence. I would have gone all ontological, teleological, and even cosmological on them.
After establishing the claim that a God exists, I would have moved on to which God exists. I would have pulled out my McDowell’s. You, know, present all the evidence for biblical prophecies coming true, see the prophecy about the city of Tyre, prophecies about Jesus, historical/textual evidence for Jesus’ life, all the standard apologetic answers.
So, after establishing the existence of God and that her revelation to us is the Bible, I would then open the old girl up and start to point out what I believe. After this 30 minute process I would then gladly accept the person to whom I was speaking’s conversion and salvation. Another person checked off the rolls of hell. Right?
No. The person would/should not have believed me. After all, for each claim that I made with evidence, they could/should have presented countering claims to the existence of God, to the authority of the Bible, and to the person/history/nature of Jesus. I could present my claims and they present theirs. Both of us would have left convinced the other was wrong. I can go into the specifics of the various arguments if needed, but my point stands without them.
In addition, if I would ever stop to listen to the other’s claims, I would more than likely leave the conversation with my faith shattered. Why? Because my faith (as was every idea) was predicated on modernist understandings of verifiable truth claims. That is, the only thing my modernist brain was wired to accept as fact was truth claims that could be scientifically verified. I naturally assumed, from a position of faith, that my claims were so. However, (switching to real life, instead of hypothetical’s) when I started to truly evaluate those claims, I found that they indeed were not as verifiable as I had thought them to be. Each of the logical proofs of God has their problems. The Gospels are not histories as we think of histories. The list goes on and on.
What then? My modernist categories through which I have been trained to view the world demand I abandon these unverifiable truth claims. However, if I were being honest with myself, I really could not bring myself to accept the opposite position either, because it too could not be scientifically verified. How do you test for God? What is your control? The essential questions of religion lay outside the realm of science, which can only access observable and testable data. The modernist categories are simply not adequate for evaluating the claims of religion.
For instance, while the Gospels cannot prove who Jesus was, there was also no way to disprove their claims as well. We simply do not have access to that type of information, given the sources available to us. I found that just about everywhere I looked into my religious beliefs, they were not able to be verified (or denied) through this modernist method of verification. I could speak in terms of probabilities, but never in certain terms. As an honest (as honest I could be) modernist, I found myself at an impasse. Given that the modernist categories are inadequate, one needs to find new categories, post-modern categories, through which one can evaluate the claims of Christianity. Doing so eliminates the need for badly researched pop-apologetics and theologies and opens the door for deeper inquiry.
So what then? Enter experience, community, and relationship, stage right. These will be the subjects of part 2.
- Postmodernity , The Existance of God
- Comments(19)
dang. it’s like i wrote this post. great words. i’m anxious to see what’s next.
[...] (Honzo) Imler presents The Basis for Belief: Part 1 posted at Theology for the [...]
Henry,
Thanks for writing this up. Good stuff so far. It may be true that the existence of God can’t be proved or disproved with science, but I’m not sure I can agree with this:
Aren’t there some things about a universe with a God that would be observably different than a universe without one? Take prayer. If God intervenes in people’s lives in response to prayer, then a well-designed experiment should be able to observe the effects. Several such experiments have been done and the results are always negative.
Maybe my approach is too modernist. I look forward to part 2.
Danny,
Firstly, thanks for the kind words. You do bring up a great point that I forgot to talk about.
The principle reason that one cannot test for things like prayer or miracles is that there not a natural force behind it. I can test for things like the reaction rates of chemicals because the processes behind them operate off of natural laws.
The God that I posit has a personality. As such, one can try to test for answered prayers, but I think there are too many variables at play. Perhaps She is wanting a person to suffer through this to gain personal strength, perhaps there is punishment going on. Perhaps It determines that the prayer is not sincere. Perhaps God is not listening. I don’t think I can test for the mind of God - I don’t think it is constant.
This only applies to the God that I think is revealed in the Christian scriptures. If God is of another configuration, then perhaps you can test for answered prayer. If God had a constant personality (i.e. did not have a personality and operated like natural laws) then if you could reproduce similar situations, then maybe you could test for answered prayer. In my evaluation, if such a test failed, then that means that either the God did not exist, or the God (or Gods) that exist operate differently in the world than what the experiment was designed to test for.
The basis for belief absolutely depends on the accuracy and veracity of the Bible. Did it or did it not happen? If not, then why bother?
A modernist argument or not, that’s the core of the system.
If I drive a car, I want to know that it works and that it’s reliable. Otherwise, I know enough to know better.
There are so many variations, interpretations, denominations of “God” that the idea of it is as subjective as experience is.
I’m no rocket scientist but the burden of proof is on the believer. I don’t think there is anything conclusive, it can’t be tested, and in the end it’s just a bunch of jumbled philosophical arguments. Where the believer makes the “jump” so to speak from rationalism to “faith” or whatever we chose to call it is important.
I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it, we need to use the same logic we use to deduce that Scientology and Mormonism aren’t true. With that same criticism I think we’ll come to find out that Christianity is unable to answer most of what we’re looking for. Christianity only remains due to the status quo and culture so it won’t be going anywhere anytime soon.
At “worst” I’m a deist or theist or agnostic of sorts and at “best” I’m a “Christian” by culture. There are many things I do agree with in the Bible and I firmly believe many of the theologians of the Bible times didn’t have a clue just as contemporary theologians of now (modernist and postmodernist - the emergent ones are douche bags (that’s my professional opinion)).
That’s all fer now.
First, I just want to thank Henry for this post. Reexamining why we believe is essential to Christian growth and edification, and before we strengthen the brothers, we ourselves must be strengthen by God and His Word through prayer and meditation. Concerning what Gringo said, I agree with his first statement. In order to believe something to be true, there are certain epistemological conditions are the necessary to be fulfilled. Many philosophers have labored to define what these conditions are. Some have said that there must be provable evidence as a foundation belief, others have said that there must be coherence, others still claim that there only needs to be a degree of warrant.
In order to truly believe the words of the Bible, it is imperative that there is an objective weight of truth given to these words. In other words, regardless of my personal beliefs, does God really exist? did Christ really did rise from the dead? did Jesus really do miracles in his lifetime? Honest answers must be given to these questions. To do otherwise is not only intellectually dishonest, but it alienates the unbeliever’s struggle by putting him/her in their "modern" box. To hide under the postmodern security blanket is what Francis Schaeffer called "the philosophy of despair." I would have to agree.
As a student of logic, philosophy, and Biblical interpretation (and a very very novice one at that), I do believe that God’s existence can be demonstrated in arguments, just as his love can be demonstrated in our actions. However, these arguments require more space than is permitted here (but the kalam and ontological are both sound and valid arguments).
Finally, to Gringo, the burden of proof is not on the Christian theoretically. The Christian is epistemologically sound in accepting God’s existence without the burden of proof (I refer you to Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief). Also, although you might disagree with the views of the emergent community, it is not very loving to call them "douche bags." I too disagree with many of conclusions of the emergent community, but they are still my brothers in Christ, and I love them.
Soli Deo Gloria
-Travis
Danny and Gringo,
The bible is far too complex a piece of literature to reduce to a narrow, pragmatic definition of ‘truth’. Parts of the Bible must be historically verifiable (Paul himself cites the historical fact of the resurrection as a sort of ‘minimum requirement’ in 1 Cor 15). Other parts, however, such as Genesis 1-11, Job, Jonah, the Parables, the Revelation and others need not be historically factual to be ‘true’ in a broader sense.
And I think the point Honzo is making is that the notion of sufficient evidence is misleading. Brilliant persons on BOTH sides of the belief debate have examined the same set of ‘evidence’ and come away with radically different conclusions. An objective, scientific proof of the Truth Claims of Christianity is probably a modernist pipe dream; so long as Christians allow themselves to be boxed into these sorts of arguments, we’ll not move the conversation forward.
Touche.
I still think the burden of proof is on the religionist. If you’ve got something, if one has the “truth” then give up the goods. Explain away, make sense out of all of this.
I can’t prove anything to you, all I’m worth is an honest conversation on the mystery of existence and reality.
I reckon I’ve found much more peace in just admitting “I really don’t know.” That to me is “gospel” oddly enough.
Sure, there are some factual places and actual historical events that took place but there are still a number of difficulties to account for. I’m not saying throw it out completely or anything of the sort. I think it’s authoritative but there are just some bits that really do make it seem and read mythically. That’s ok, but if one is supposed to base their entire life on something that isn’t really true, based on myths, based on one’s specific interpretation then… well, it’s just complicated and not really worth it.
I like the term douchebags. I’m crass (no lie) and I figured a bit of sacasm and humor would be good. As for the emergent theologians, I appreciate what they’re saying but it seems they have quite a bit of difficulty putting their beliefs into action. I just basically stop hearing someone when I find out they’re making money off of religion - and they’re might fine at it.
Oh well.
Gringo,
Why can’t myths be ‘true’? Why can’t we base ethics and morality (at least, and at least in part) on myths?
Why must ‘true’ only mean ‘historically factual/accurate’?
I’m with JR on the myth/truth discussion.
I would also say that I don’t think the burden of proof is on the theist - there are always certain things people consider as base beliefs upon which they structure other beliefs. These basic beliefs are seldom ‘proved’ - and everyone has them. For the theist, the existence of God is a basic belief - it needs not be demonstrated. The onus is on the atheists to destroy that basic belief.
Also, in response the post - I don’t think the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments have lost value, even in a postmodern world. They were, after all, not modernist constructions, but premodern constructions. Also, most of them were not attempting to prove the existence of God, but rather trying to probe the mystery of something already believed.
These arguments have their value, I think, primarily when they are taken together. When we take them together with the other evidences (historical, experience, saintly persons) they comprise a pretty strong argument for theism.
I also like the fact that the ontological argument views the existence of God extending from a right definition of God - that is, we define God first, then determine if such a being exists. This ‘that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived’ arguement is really fascinating to me.
Gringo,
I believe your last post was a response to my last post, and I thank you for that.
First, I really like your phrase “the mystery of existence and reality.” Jean-Paul Sartre said that all of philosophy can be boiled down to the question “why is there something instead of nothing?” I think this is very profound. The problem of being is one of the dilemmas that man has always (and will always) wrestle with until they find their answer in God and God alone. There are some very good arguments that claim that only God is the reason for the existence of anything at all (let alone morals, minds, and conscience).
I believe on of the simplest and most eloquent of these arguments is Leibniz’s cosmological argument for the existence of God. Employing his principle of sufficient reason, Leibniz’s argument is as follows:
1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.
What do you think Gringo?
To Tom,
I very much enjoyed your post. I would have to disagree with some/much of what is being said about the validity of myths when used to communicate truths, but this horse was beaten enough in a previous discussion :).
Concerning what you said about the arguments for the existence of God, you are exactly right. Whatever arguments came out of the modern thinkers (e.g. Descartes, Leibniz, etc.), they were simply standing on the shoulders of giants before them. Even Descartes’ “cogito, ergo sum” can be found in the writings of Augustine.
I think this points out a fallacy that I see a lot here in our delightful dialogues here at Mass Theology. Just because one sees the revelation of God and His universe as coherent, ordered, and beautifully systematic does not mean that one is thinking modernly (e.g. the scholastics, Anslem, Aquinas, Calvin, and yes St. Paul). The modern thinkers saw the universe mechanistically, to the point where it lead to a naturalism/materialism which reduced the universe and man to the impersonal. This is where modernism went wrong. Therefore, I believe that the universe is harmonious and in perfect order according to the will of God. Just as his Word (the written and the Incarnate Christ) is perfect and inerrant as well. Does this mean there is know mystery to the universe and the Bible? Of course not! God has given us these mysteries and our reason to probe the depths of existence and to find Him there lurking beyond the shadows. Indeed, to throw up our hands in existential angst and let the postmodern waves wash over us is not only wrong, but boring.
Soli Deo Gloria
-Travis
Myths aren’t true because they’re invented by man. One can believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy all they want but doing so doesn’t make it any more true and the same applies towards Xianity.
Why can’t myths be true? Because they aren’t true, that’s why. Why base my entire life on something that is fake or most likely didn’t happen?
Just because I can’t explain something doesn’t mean it should be automatically attributed to a divine being.
As stated previously, I know why Mormonism and Scientology are not true and, therefore, it is absolutely necessary to use that same sort of logic towards any other faith that claims to be true.
I don’t mean to put rain on anybody’s parade here but reading this stuff on inerrancy etc. is a little weird. It’s a book written by man and compiled by man. It’s not an obelisk nor something that tore out of reality and landed in our lap but that’s exactly what we need but that’s exactly what we don’t have. We’re talking about imperfect language and how this Bible is on comparable to God. To boot, we’re (all of us) are stuck in (I’m guessing) in a very western view of things. I’d be money all of us are Americans too. This has loads to do with our interpretations.
If I can offer some advice here folks, it’s this: Don’t be afraid to be wrong. Don’t be afraid to actually question. Don’t be afraid to walk away and roam around. It sucks being wrong, it sucks having the very faith I’ve established a good deal or at least the important parts of my life shaken mightily. There’s a heck of a lot more freedom in saying (and admitting) "I just don’t know." We want answers… badly and I totally understand but it’s not gonna happen.
I’m no rocket scientist but it seems to figure out the meaning of life, one has to be. Besides, it’s looks as if a number of people are making the mistake that Christianity is somehow the default "God" or what have you.
Cheers.
I haven’t had time to truly process and respond to much of hte substance of this thread, but I will respond to this:
Not necessarily. It depends on your definition of myth, I guess.
I would define “myth” as a story that holds significant (often spiritual) meaning. Such story may be a historical event or a made up story.
Come on… I know that you can do better than that.
I got into trouble once for claiming the Bible contains mythology. Yet most, if not all, Biblical scholars (liberal, conservative, and everything in between) would agree that the Bible contains mythology. Yet many of those would say that the Bible is true.
And this… your assumptions that those who “believe” are afraid to be wrong is reaching a bit, don’t you think? And your assumption that because you have found different answers means that others have not questioned (or at least questioned correctly) comes across as quite arrogant.
agreed dave. in so many words, it takes more faith to believe in nothing than to believe in something…
gringo, i agree there is a fine line between becoming dogmatic in our “beliefs” and being open to new revelations that are consistent with the documents we believe in.
the bible tells us to be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. it’s not either/or, it’s both/and. we strive to find a humble confidence in the faith we have. and that may lead us to “believe” in certain things, if for a time, before those “beliefs” are deepened or they are changed.
gringo, can you explain this: “It’s not an obelisk nor something that tore out of reality and landed in our lap but that’s exactly what we need but that’s exactly what we don’t have. We’re talking about imperfect language and how this Bible is on comparable to God.”
trying to follow you, but don’t understand your train of thought…
We need to have a sense of balance between the objective reality of our faith and the subjective reality of our faith.
Again, i think there is great value in the classical arguments for the existence of God, but ultimately, there is little in these arguments that points us to THE specific God incarnate - that come through revelation.
Take the resurrection for example. Is it an objective historical occurence? If by ‘objective’ we mean that it really happened in time and space then, yes, it is objective. But if we mean by ‘objective’ that it is empirically demonstrable, then we have a limited number of records, some of which slightly disagree with each other in minor historical details, and none of which was written by an ‘objective’ third party.
What I’m getting at is, the reason I believe the resurrection happened is not because of the historical objectivity of the event (though in some sense that is helpful), but because God has revealed to me and my community that this event took place in time and space and give meaning to my life and meaning to existence in general. This is revelation - and revelation is far from an objective reality - that is, it is not observable in the scientific sense.
Again, though, this is why I think all the arguments (objective and subjective) should be taken as a whole - because together they create a pretty air-tight case, not just for theism, but for Christian theism.
As to myths - yes, that horse was beaten in anothe post. In this case, I really do think our problem is the modernist paradigm of what counts as truth. I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense, I’m simply saying that the modernist paradigm has difficulty with that kind of ‘truth.’ But, as Travis said, that horse is already beaten and it is only distracting to this conversation.
Whichever horse was beaten, I don’t put much stock in "myths." Astrology to fables to parables, fine if there’s something I can take way - no problem. That’s not the point, the way I took it was that one expects me to take something hook line and sinker if something is indeed a myth. No thanks, I’ll pass. Myth is made up, it’s legend, not true, fake, not fact, nonhistorical - sure, there might be a moral of the story. If myth were permissable, Mormonsim sounds pretty darn appealing.
As for the arrogance accusation. Please, just stop. I’m not the one here claiming to know the meaning of life. This is, indeed, a two way street. I haven’t even advocated that there is no god. I stated it plainly at the beginning, I’m pretty much an agnostic of sorts. If stating "I don’t know." is deemed as arrogance, I really don’t know what else to say because, it would seem, it’s a one way conversation. No thanks, again.
To expound on one of my earlier statements: The Bible is not a magic book. The Bible is not God either. It’s got a pretty rough history because it was (obviously) written, edited and compiled by man. Man wrote it, not "God." What religionists need/want is something magical like an obelisk (Space Oddyssey 2001). We don’t have that and we should stop treating the Bible as such.
To boot, using Scripture to try and convince me (anyone) isn’t going to work. I have beef with it and that’s why I’m not using it as my guiding light and trying to throw verses here and there aren’t exactly effectively either. Just a few words of advice.
If you think me suggesting a few things like I did was arrogance, it was not. No, far from it. I mean, if anything, and anybody could walk away with the truthes I typed. Admitting "I don’t know." is really quite refreshing. I have no ax to grind and perhaps a few of you will see that Christianity isn’t (true?). That’s arrogance?
Oy ve. I’m not even sure why I bother to type. My words are so limited here and the conversation is limited to comments and responses.
If faith is not objective, no thanks. I’ll pass, again. That’s precisely why I reject other religions. Sure, they have their morals and principles of which might be conducive to how I conduct my life but placing trust or what have you (i.e. "believing in Jesus", "being saved" "from the fiery depths of hell").
As jumbled as this sounds (I really don’t care), I’m just an average guy with average intelligence. My heart can’t receive what my mind can’t conceive. It’s simple, I don’t believe in things like the Easter Bunny because they’re not true. I don’t believe in a sun god because I know enough that it’s a gigantic star of which our world goes around. Fire isn’t magic and neither has a little god that gets angry every so often. Hurricanes happen because of combined storms and not because of some god behind it all because s/he is pissed off. If this qualifies as arrogance, fine. Call me arrogant but they’re pretty well mistaken.
Do what you do, do what makes you happy. If it makes you a better person, fine and no worries. I don’t agree with it and neither do I think it’s true but it’s really not that big of a deal either so long as we mind our own business. Dare I say that agnostics and theists are really in the minority here meaning you’ve got the advantage on so many levels (social/political).
Anyway, enjoy my incoherent rant. It’s a bit crap and I know it. Cheers.
[...] Theology for the Masses :: The Basis for Belief Part 1 [...]
[...] am still working through the reason why I believe. I talked earlier about how modernist conceptions are not adequate for judging the merits of a particular religion because we don’t have access to the data needed to verify the claims of religion. In the [...]