My previous
entries on this topic have been exploring the possibility of “testing” the
supernatural. One of the key issues
we’ve had to confront is trying to define a very specific question that could
be used to design a “spiritual” experiment.
However, I think it is appropriate to take a brief “time-out” from this
discussion and address those who have “closed and locked the door” to anything
spiritual. I briefly mentioned this
group before (here), but kind of left it hanging. However, if you’re in this group, I’d like to
give one more try to see if I can get you to come along for the ride in our spiritual
experiment. I don’t want you to miss all
the fun!
I tried to
motivate the concept of experimentation in my Introduction to this whole
discussion (here). Here, however, I
want to talk about “reason” and “reasonable” and see if I can make what
would be loosely classified as an “apologetics”[1]
argument, only with a different goal in mind than is typically identified with
Christian apologetics.
To do this, I
want to go back to one of my favorite quotes (here):
“If
we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mysterious and
supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will
be absurd and ridiculous.”
Blaise
Pascal, Pensées, 1669
I made previously
the statement that “You can’t prove Christianity through reason alone. The best you can hope to do is show that it
is reasonable.” I’d like to carry that thought out further
and put forth a few specific examples to show how I separate “reason” from
“reasonable”, and why it is so important for us to do.
The
beginnings of everything. This is a
common area for contention between science and faith (although I think that is
a mistake, as I have discussed here and here).
The Christian will say “see that beautiful sunrise? Obviously there is a God.” The scientist will say that there are
entirely natural, scientific explanations for the existence of sunrises,
beautiful or otherwise – and sunrises have nothing to do with God. In my opinion, that’s a difference of opinion
that is unresolvable. I don’t think
reasoning from nature can force you into the conclusion that God exists, nor do
I think that reasoning from nature can force you into the conclusion that God
does not exist. But I don’t need to
prove either extreme. All I want to be
able to posit is that the idea of a Creator God is not unreasonable. Going back to the principle Pascal proposed,
Christian beliefs regarding creation do not
offend the principles of reason – there
could be a Creator – but reason alone cannot force us to that
conclusion.
The
reliability of the Bible. Many
Christians claim that the Bible is reliable in what it says, and some even
claim it is inerrant. There are also
plenty of critics of Christianity who claim that the Bible has been modified,
edited, or completely fabricated over the course of time. It would be hard to get into any level of
detail here, but let’s just consider one of the most outlandish things included
in the Bible: Jesus’ bodily
resurrection. Is this reasonable? Well, it is fundamentally a miracle – it goes
against all natural laws. In that sense,
it is difficult to see how reason alone will drive you to the conclusion that
it actually happened. It is the
“mysterious and supernatural element” that Pascal mentions. But can it be considered unreasonable? If there is a
God who is all-powerful and He came to live on earth as a man, it is not unreasonable that He could come back
from the dead. If there is no God, or if
Jesus was just a man, or if the whole story is just legend, then the idea of
breaking natural laws is totally
unreasonable. But you can’t use reason
to eliminate the possibility of a supernatural God outside of human reach. If a person is honest, I think they have to
say “the resurrection of Jesus could have happened – I can’t eliminate that
possibility 100%, however unlikely it might be.”
The
problem of evil. There are plenty of
issues here. How can a loving God allow
such awful things to happen to innocent people?
How can a “good” God allow evil?
Did God create evil? If not, who
did? Etc. But for me I just have to ask “does the
obvious existence of evil and tragedy exclude
God, or does it just make God difficult
to understand?” I do not see how
this line of questioning and thinking can end with the statement “…and
therefore this completely excludes
the idea that there could be a God in the universe.” These issues don’t have anything to say about
God’s existence – rather, they have
something to say about God’s character.
I have no
interest in trying to construct rational proofs
for God’s existence; and there can be no rational proof for God’s non-existence. If you start with the assumption that there
is, or at least could be, a God, then you will probably conclude there is
one. If you start with the assumption
that there is no God, only nature, then you will conclude that there is no
God. To me that’s not very helpful. In my view, either conclusion is reasonable, given the starting assumptions.
We need something else – that’s
why I’m so interested in the idea of an experiment.
What I
personally find unreasonable is the idea that the supernatural can be “figured
out” without revelation. This, I propose,
would be the kind of religion that would fit into Pascal’s definition of
“absurd and ridiculous.” For example, I
consider it unreasonable to think that I can figure out what happens after I
die without some sort of supernatural revelation. A religion based on logically-reasoned
arguments alone seems devoid of what
religion is really good for. My personal
yardstick is “if I could sit in a corner of a room and reason out these ideas,
then they are not good enough.” I need
something more – something supernatural – and it has to come from outside of
me. If religion can’t offer that, then
I’ll stick with the natural sciences alone.
I need revelation. And revelation is closely related to, if not
almost the same as, an experiment.
I don’t know
if this line of discussion is helpful at all.
At the very least, I hope it helps explain why I am interested in a
“spiritual experiment” and maybe it will get you thinking about it as well.
Finally, I
know that there are some who say “well, I told God to show up in front of me if
He is real, and He didn’t, so that’s that.”
To me this is a very valid
problem, which I would like to discuss…next time.
[1]
The word “apologetics” refers to reasoned arguments in defense of a particular
view, usually with reference to Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment