Sam & Socrates
discuss
If there is a God why
doesn’t God provide clear
and undeniable
evidence of existence?
Sam: Good morning
Socrates, how are you this morning?
Socrates: Still
drinking my first cup of coffee so things are getting better with each sip? How about you?
Sam: Been pondering a
question.
Socrates: Well that
is always a good way to start the day.
So what question do you have your been musing about?
Sam: If there were a
God why would God not just provide clear and undeniable evidence to everyone of
God’s existence?
Socrates: That is a
question that many have wrestled with as they have thought about God. What are the possible answers?
Sam: Well let me
see:
1. No such clear and
undeniable evidence exists because God does not exist.
2. No evidence exists
because God does not desire humanity to know of God’s existence.
3. God does care
about humanity. If this is assumed then
it could be that in some way if God did provide such clear and undeniable
evidence of divine existence this would harm humanity.
4. God providing such
clear and undeniable evidence of divine existence would hinder some greater
good from being attained.
5. There is clear and
undeniable evidence but humanity refuses to acknowledge it because of a lack of
desire to know God or the ability to understand this evidence.
Socrates: That seems
a good place to start. So let us look at
each option. Assuming that no clear and
undeniable evidence exists of God being real, then does this prove that God
does not exist?
Sam: No, since the
other options would indicate that such evidence does not exist but could be for
many reasons ranging from indifference towards us to our indifference towards
God. So if any of these other options
are true then God could still theoretically exist.
Socrates: Also, while
some degree of evidence seems to be lacking does this mean that there is no
evidence of God’s existence at all
Sam: No many have
pointed to the contingency of the universe and the need of a necessary being,
the evidence of design in the cosmos, existential experience of God’s
existence, fulfilled prophecy, the resurrection of Jesus Christ and many other
things as providing evidence for God’s existence.
So if one found this evidence to provide a rational
inductive argument to justify a conviction in God’s existence compelling, then
God could exist, and also some reason that God chose to not provide such clear
and compelling evidence to humanity. [1]
Socrates: So as long
as a there is a possible rational reason for God not providing undeniable proof
of the divine existence then the lack of this action by God to give such a
demonstration would not require us to accept agnosticism or atheism as the only
possible answers to the question of God.
Sam: That would seem
to be the case.
Socrates: Then the
next option we have is that a Creator God exists but there is lack of evidence
of the divine existence simply because God does not have any interest in us or
desire to make God’s existence known to humanity.
Sam: This perspective
seems to reconcile the evidence for God’s existence and lack of undeniable
evidence of that existence better that the last. Here we can acknowledge the rational reasons
to believe a Creator God exists and yet also understand why God seems hidden
from us.
Socrates: Yet, we
have here testimonies of answered prayers and claims of divine involvement, and
even revelation. Some of this testimony
could be false but it is in such a large number of cases that it would be hard
to think that none of this revelation and reports of God’s activity was
true. Even today it is reported that
51% of the people in the world believe in God and would feel that there is
sufficient evidence for rational acceptance of God’s existence and even care
for human beings. [2] There is even rational defense for miracles
and testimonies from modern Western nations that they do occur.[3] So the claim that God has done nothing to
make himself known would not seem to fit all the data and testimony we have
historically or currently.
Sam: So it would be
hard to demonstrate that God simply created the universe and then refused to
interact with us because of the extent and number of reports that indicate that
people have encountered God in various ways.
So while God may not have provided
concrete and universal evidence of God’s existence to each person, it can be argued that God has provided some
evidence of the divine existence and this would show a measure of concern for
us to know about God.
Socrates: So let us
look at the answer that would say that such a concrete giving of evidence to
humanity would do us harm.
Sam: I do not see how
that can be?
Socrates: Do you
believe that if a person is given undeniable evidence and then rejects this
evidence and works contrary to it that this is worst than a person who is given
less evidence?
Sam: What do you
mean?
Socrates: Let us say
that a jury was given concrete and undeniable evidence that a person committed
a murder. They had videotapes,
fingerprints, motive, and every amount of physical evidence you can imagine. In
addition they had a signed confession from the accused person. Yet, the jury felt that the victim deserved
to be murdered and liked the personality of the murderer. The jury declares the person innocent knowing
that he/she is guilty. Is that jury
more accountable than a jury where the evidence is strong but not so absolute?
Sam: The more
knowledge a person has the greater the responsibility to act in accordance with
the evidence.
Socrates: Exactly, so
let us assume that God would want the best outcome in providing evidence of the
divine existence to us, and that God already knows the outcome of every
possible universe. If we assume a God
who cares for humanity the only reason that such a divine being would not
provide such concrete evidence is that the outcome would be to make humanity
more responsible and yet not lead to a good response to this information. In other words, the majority of people would
not respond in a positive way and therefore be in greater moral guilt.
Sam: But why would
that be the case.
Socrates: Do we
always do what we know to be the right thing to do?
Sam: No, many times
we fail to act consistently with our highest ideals.
Socrates: The whole
problem with ethics and morals is not so much that people don’t know what is
right or wrong but even when they know what is right they don’t do it. People do not always listen to their
conscience. So why do we think they
would respond positively to greater evidence concerning God?
Sam: I see what you
mean. Our moral problems are not so much
caused by confusion about what we believe to be right or wrong but by our
failure to do what we would say is the right thing to do. So if this included the proper moral
response to God, which would be absolute surrender and obedience, then those
with greater revelation would be more morally responsible.
Socrates: That would
seem to be the case.
Sam: The other idea which
is connected to this one suggests that some greater good might be lost if such
concrete revelation was given.
Socrates: I think
that we could imagine such a situation. It
is even possible that the process of needing to seek God and process
information might actually lead more people to a deeper faith than if
everything was handed to them on a silver spoon. We
value what we have to seek more than what we are simply given.
There could also be other factors that might actually mean
that more people respond positively with partial evidence instead of absolute
evidence since it does not seemed forced on them. Kierkegaard, argue that the only way that
God could get the relationship God desires with humanity is by giving us less
open evidence of his existence. [4] So
in such a situation a God who cared about us would not provide absolute
concrete evidence to every person.
Sam: So one could
have in such a situation a God who cares for humanity and yet not provide
concrete evidence of the divine existence.
Socrates: This is at
least theoretically possible.
Sam: That leads us
to one other possibility and that is that God has provided clear evidence to
humanity and we simply have refused to acknowledge it or accept it. I don’t know how we could consider this a
possibility.
Socrates: It has been
argued from natural theology for a long time that the universe itself presents
clear evidence of a Creator. [5] At an existential and experience level many
people feel that the order they see around them is best explained by a Creator. The argument has also been made that our
moral conscience is evidence of as an ultimate moral judge. [6]
In this case the argument is not that God has failed to
provide sufficient and even compelling evidence but that humanity has
suppressed this evidence because of a desire to avoid God’s existence. So one could argue the problem is not with
God but the problem is with humanity’s honesty with the evidence that does
exist.
Sam: So a God could
exist that cares for humanity but who would not give us any more evidence than
we have about the divine existence. The
fact that more evidence has not been given is not an indication of God not
existing or that if a God exists, that God does not care enough about us to
give us adequate evidence of the reality of the divine existence.
Socrates: I think
this is a reasonable conclusion
[1] The
Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz: (Library of Philosophy and Religion) by William Lane Craig
The Kalam
Cosmological Argument by William L. Craig
The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific
Evidence for an Intelligent Designer by J. P. Moreland
How to Think About God: A Guide for the
20th-century Pagan : One Who Does Not Worship the God of Christians, Jews...by
Mortimer J. Adler
How to Prove There Is a God: Mortimer J.
Adler's Writings and Thoughts About God by Mortimer Adler , Ken
Dzugan
[3] Miracles:
What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life
by Eric Metaxas
No comments:
Post a Comment