In a post at Jesus Creed, RJS summarizes six clues for the existence of God, expounded in a book by Tim Kellers. I’d like to add one point of my own, and then respond to one of RJS’s points.
The “clue” I’d like to add is human consciousness. I see the following marvels as the big three:
- the existence of the cosmos (Why is there something, instead of nothing?);
- the existence of life (How did some of the cosmic stuff come to be alive?); and
- the existence of human consciousness (Among living things, how did human beings come to possess sentience?).
Any one of those steps, taken by itself, represents an enormously improbable leap. The three taken together constitute enormous improbability cubed.
On the other hand, I am inclined to quibble with one of RJS’s points:
- The desire for God, for meaning. This can be rationalized – but an evolutionary explanation is a tacit acknowledgment that there is ultimately no meaning or purpose.
Is it? I have debated this point with atheists, and in the end I think they got the better of the argument with me.
My atheist interlocutors argued that each individual decides for him- or herself what makes life meaningful. That argument may sound pretty weak on the face of it. But I tend to be interested in things as they work in practice, rather than things as they work in terms of abstract theory. And it seems to me that the atheists accurately describe how things work in practice.
Meaning tends to be a subjective, individual pursuit (at least in Western culture):
- one person finds meaning in the teachings of Jesus; another finds meaning in the appreciation of art.
- one person, in the pursuit of money and power; another, in renouncing all material possessions out of solidarity with the poor.
- one person, in the study of insects or the growing of plants; another, in the enjoyment of gourmet foods.
- one person, in an abundance of friendships; another, in solving complex mathematical riddles.
I’m not about to tell atheists that they are wrong on this point. On the contrary — I think they’re right.
I think you overreach when you suggest these are clues for God (the Christian deity). At best, they are clues for some entity (or entities) outside our time and space. Clue 1 remains a mystery. Clue 2 I think we’ll figure out; scientists are getting closer all the time. Clue 3…are you really suggesting only humans possess sentience?
nonesoblind,
I like your approach to this issue, and the fairness of your position with respect to atheistic materialists. I, too, have found that many of my atheist friends have lives filled with purpose and meaning, even if such meaning is of their own imaginings. I am frankly more interested in pursuing an overriding transcendent purpose, assuming (and I do) that one exists. Still, arguing that atheists have no significant purpose or fulfillment is fruitless.
I am finding that many of the standard theistic arguments are no longer useful, including those used by C.S. Lewis. Evolutionists have proposed reasonable mechanisms for the development of religious impulses, moral behavior, and altruism. We need to learn where to draw the line in the sand.
Your probability arguments work for me, to an extent. Even Fred Hoyle and Albert Einstein were impressed, if not won over. Dawkins supposed answer to the probability argument holds no water for me. And even though the argument does not rise to the level of proof, it surely provides reasonableness to a theist position.
I find so much personal and experiential confirmation of transcendent intelligence that God is, for me, simply undeniable. All I need do is step out on my porch and take in creation, or experience the love of my family and friends. The inexplicable and transcendent nature of marital love cries out for an other-than-evolutionary explanation!
Keep up the good work. I appreciate your honesty, your thought processes, and your writing!
Robert,
I read nonesoblind’s post again, and I did not find his reference to the “Christian deity”. Did I miss something?
Non-believers are always quick to point out that theistic proofs say nothing about “which” deity may exist. It strikes me as a diversionary tactic, quite frankly. There are two questions which must be kept separate. I try to keep them separate. It would do well for you to do the same:
1) Does a Creator, a transcendent all powerful God, exist? Is their any evidence (there is most certainly no empirical “proof”) favoring the existence of such a Being? Is it reasonable to suppose his existence. (I think nonesoblind’s post relates to this question alone.)
2) Once we have settled question 1 in our minds, we can then move on to ask what kind of God he might be. And which of the world’s religious traditions give us the most likely description of God. This is a separate discussion. And of course, the discussion only has meaning for those who come away from question 1 persuaded of the affirmative.
Cliff Martin,
Is not God the name of the Christian deity? We skeptics point out that the theistic “proofs” say nothing about which deity may exist because all too often we see a conflation between the alleged deity and the particular deity the theist happens to believe in.
Why couldn’t the clues just as well be clues for the existence of Allah, Thor, or Zeus?
I agree with you that the question of the existence of an all powerful, transcendent entity is separate from what kind of entity it may be. That’s the point we’re in effect raising.
• Robert:
Thanks for leaving a comment — the first one on my new blog. Let me start out by saying that I’m not a fundamentalist, and I’m open to respectful dialogue with anyone who is interested.
Cliff is right when he says that the “clues” I present speak only to the reasonableness of faith, and fall short of providing proof of anything.
Cliff is also right that I’m not trying to make an argument for a specifically Christian deity. At the very least, the points I’m making would be equally relevant to the religions of the three “people of the book” — Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
I’m obviously thinking in terms of a Creator; which, in turn, implies some kind of personality (at a minimum, the will to create) and intelligence.
But it would leave lots of other questions unanswered: for example, whether or not God is good, as Christians maintain. So maybe Thor and Zeus fit within the broad paradigm I’ve outlined, too.
Re sentience: if you follow the link to Wikipedia, you’ll see that it’s a discussion of the controversy in scientific circles over this very issue. Some scientists think consciousness is an insoluable mystery, while others don’t see any problem there whatsoever. You can guess which camp I’m in (though I don’t profess any expertise on this very difficult topic).
I’m aware that other animals possess some degree of consciousness. But evidently there’s a heck of a leap between non-humans and humans. Many scientists assume that conscious is a natural consequence of the complexity of the human brain, but that isn’t self-evident to me. I side with those who make a distinction between the brain and the mind. I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis that God intervened at some point in the evolutionary process to account for the gap between human beings and other animal life.
As for scientists getting closer to the origins of life — I disagree. The situation remains as before, with a vast degree of improbability involved. Science hasn’t yet bridged the chasm.
• Cliff:
Thanks for dropping by. I appreciate the encouraging words, and the clarification of my brief post.
I am finding that many of the standard theistic arguments are no longer useful, including those used by C.S. Lewis.
Very true. Thus the need to turn away from proof, a standard which is almost certainly unachievable, to the standard of reasonableness — as you rightly point out.
nonesoblind,
I’m honored to be your first commentator. Let’s hope I haven’t cursed your blog!
I’m not sure what theists regard as proofs versus clues. Cliff Martin refers to the former in a response to me.
I did read the article at Wikipedia. You’re right that what exactly defines sentience is not scientifically settled, which is why I was a bit surprised you had included it as a clue. I think it should be clear that sentience is not a solely human trait. You suggested that there’s a qualitative leap in consciousness between humans and non-humans. This reminded me of an article I recently read, which describes how the difference between us and our closest genetic relatives, the great apes, has once again been narrowed. I won’t give away the show, so go read the article yourself.
Thanks for the link, Robert. That was an interesting read.
Let me wax philosophical for a moment. It seems clear to me that people always function from within their subjective, socially-conditioned perspective. We tend to see only what corresponds to our prior preconceptions.
That’s one of the reasons that I think a search for proof is futile. There are no uninterpreted facts; and since I interpret the facts differently than you do, we are bound to find it difficult to come up with an incontrovertible argument that the other person feels obliged to accept.
Returning to the current dialogue — I read the article you linked to, and I see the author identifying a very clear and significant difference between apes and human beings. It seems consistent with the argument I’m making, even though you presented it as evidence for a contrary point of view.
That’s OK. I’m not determined to win a debate with you. I’m quite prepared to respect a different point of view and even try to enter into it, as much as I’m capable of doing. So I appreciate you sharing your perspective and giving the rest of us something to think about.
nonesoblind,
I appreciate the point about different perspectives and I’m glad you enjoyed the article. The reason for offering it was to show that sentience doesn’t appear to separate us from our closest genetic relatives. Rather, it’s our cooperative capabilities.
[...] 2, 2008 by nonesoblind This is a follow-up to an earlier post. See also the comment by Cliff [...]