1. The God of Philosophers and the God of the Bible
1.1. Introduction – While we have proven the god of the philosophers (the necessary being; Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover) we have not proven the God of the Bible. While God is the first cause, the necessary being, an eternal self existent being but He is more than that.
1.2. God is Not Just the Unmoved Mover – God didn’t just create. He upholds creation and is concerned with history. I think it is important that although we acknowledge that God is so much more we still see God stress in Scripture the sufficiency of creation. This is a partial knowledge of God but it is not untrue because it is partial. We also assert that God is sovereign over all and that He is both immanent and transcendent. Errors often occur if a person forgets one or the other.
1.3. God is the Intentional Designer – The Bible reveals God as a designer and the design we see has also been developed as an argument for the existence of God. This has given rise to the teleological argument for God. For Kant this was a convincing proof. However, the argument usually declines into a discussion of what makes something “designed”. We showed that the universe is “dependent” or created. We don’t need to argue about design or no design. We simply have shown that something exists and than requires God exist. The real problem with the teleological proof of God for a Biologist is that the “rules” we live in seem to “select” in a way that “produces” things of complexity. While we look at a garden and see a gardener’s hand someone else looks at a garden and sees “natural beauty”.
1.4. God is Personal and He Holds Us Accountable – The god of the philosophers is not personal. An impersonal God isn’t going to hold you accountable for sin. Sin is rebellion. Rebellion isn’t impersonal. Sin is an offense. You can’t offend and impersonal thing. The psychology of rejecting the proof of God is often deeply rooted here. Accountability is a scary thing.
2. Kant’s Moral Argument
2.1. Introduction – Kant was the one who was especially important for epistemology (I think therefore I am). For Kant the moral argument for God’s existence was most convincing. The moral law within was convincing to Kant. He rejected the other proofs because he decided that our experiences here (phenomenal) were too limited to learn anything useful about God’s unreachable (noumenal) world.
2.2. Romans 1: God’s Moral Law Is Plain to All – Paul argues that God’s revelation in creation is sufficient to convince us of God and that God has also revealed His enough of His character in creation that we as humans can understand righteousness and the demands on our behavior. Paul argues that we know how we ought to act. However, in spite of knowing how we ought to behave, we chase after sin and approve of those who chance after sin. We may declare that each act is amoral but our conscience may be cauterized but not removed.
2.3. Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” – Non-Christians sometimes argue that our consciences are simply a result of socialization or conventions. We could argue about custom vs. absolute law but the conscience is at the core even in fallen mankind. Ethics is the core of society. Our form of government requires a moral population. It is one reason that it can be difficult to export. “Imagine” by J. Lennon is the dumbest song on the planet. I can’t believe anyone could even write the song. No heaven, no hell, no countries, no religion, and no possessions. The situation would create a world of anarchy and selfishness and violence. We’ve really been there from time to time anyway and a brotherhood of man didn’t result. And if you want to see a truly dangerous man, find a smart man who is convinced there is not heaven or hell. If there is not God then there is no ground for doing what is “right”.
2.4. Kant: Morality Makes No Sense Without God – He moved to a transcendental type of question, “what would it take for objective moral standards to be meaningful?” Well first of all Justice. If we have moral standards but ultimately no justice then there is no reason to be virtuous. Right? If crime pays then sign up for crime. Then Kant reasoned that we certainly don’t see perfect justice in this life. Amen to that (see Psalms 94:3). The wicked can rejoice only in a world with imperfect justice even though we try to design systems that dispense justice. Then for this to make sense there must be a place with perfect justice. This requires a morally perfect judge with omniscience. So if our sense of “oughtness” is anything other than a trick or preference then there must be a God because the required characteristics for the judge are God’s characteristics. Morality makes God necessary and Kant argues that we need to live as if there is a God because if there is not then there is no hope.
3. Nihilists
3.1. Introduction – Those who came after Kant acknowledged his point. They acknowledged they were acting like God was so that they had some reason to act like morals had a meaning. Eventually they argued that you had to stop sitting on the fence. Either we have God and morality or no God and no morality, life is meaningless, and there is no hope.
3.2. Nietzsche and the “New Morality” of Nihilism – Nietzsche is a key figure. He thought we (western civilization) had been made weak by the Judeo-Christian foundation. He thought that man’s basic driving force was a will to power (he never would have written “Image”). The suppression of this will to power and elevation of herd mentality and exultation of weaknesses like compassion are all bad for Freddy. He dumps pity as God’s fatal disease. Nietzsche says the superman will rise above this and created his own morality. Remember I said the most dangerous man is a smart man convinced there is no God. This is the point at which I pity John Lennon (and his sentiments in “Imagine”) both as a Christian and as a man who would have lined up with Nietzsche except for the Grace of God. Pity is probably too kind a term.
3.3. Ecclesiastes on Nihilism – Concepts expressed by nihilism are not really new. Ecclesiastes was written by a pretty smart guy and God helped him. He has an argument with himself. He ends up after examining wise people and fools at “all is vanity and a striving after the wind”. Other’s have also ended up in the nihilist camp. Jean-Paul Sartre wrote “Nausea” in which he shows man as a “useless passion” to have no meaning and cares that amount to nothing. The author of Ecclesiastes doesn’t accept Kant’s breakdown at the world of nature unable to deal with the world of God. The author of Ecclesiastes looks upward past the right now and calls on us to look to God’s wisdom, goodness, justice, and God’s ability and will to punish hypocrisy. The earth bound view is show as useless and we are to think beyond the earth bound view.
3.4. Secular Humanism: Combining Theism and Nihilism – There are a range of fuzzy blends in which folks want to deny God but yet still have morals that are more than preferences. Human rights and dignity are lifted up as good things when there is no basis for anything to be good. This is intellectual cowardice. Why would human dignity matter is there is no God? It is a preference not a real “good”. Kant said to whistle in the grave yard and pretend there is a God because the alternative was too scary. Nietzsche had the common sense and guts to say that was silly and a cowards solution. Nietzsche accepted Eph 2:12 (Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.) Nietzsche didn’t whistle in the grave yard because he believed he was alone. Really alone. Alone in the universe. He just decided like moss was moss he was going to be man as man and as good as he could – superman exercising as much power as he can muster because it is his natural inclination.
3.5. If There Is No God, Why Is There Religion – hedonists who escape the futility of life? Since Kant argued that God was unknowable and we couldn’t say anything meaningful about him, nihilists went on to say He was irrelevant. Why is religion so universal? Mankind is naturally religious and so psychological fear is often suggested as the reason. For someone raised in the world of science it is surprising to me that so few folks note that this begs the question, “Why would, and how could, such a useless, pointless, and ultimately fatal thing evolve in this cold mechanistic universe?” The answers are not satisfactory.
4. Those who choose to reject God
4.1. Why do they do it? – Well they say that our belief in God is a result of an unfortunate genetic predisposition to a life with meaning. In other words they say we have psychological need to believe. Brilliant people have ended up on both ends of this argument. All these guys were smart. Nietzsche was a genius and so was Aquinas. At this point psychological baggage should be looked at. Christians “want” God to exist. We know that we can rationalize facts to fit out prejudices. We generally want to avoid that sort of thing. However, it isn’t just Christians that bring baggage. Atheists bring baggage. They have a vested interest in God not existing. The idea that a perfect Judge exists calls all our being into question. What does He require? How will He set things right? What if He is “Holy?” The atheist has at least as deep a need for God to not exist as the theist has for God to exist. The atheist’s big problem with God is not intellectual it is moral. Unless you bow your knee to Almighty God you’ve got to suppress the knowledge of Him with all the strength you’ve got. Even then you’ll hear the hounds of heaven and I pray they catch you if they haven’t yet.
5) Brief summaries of various proofs of God (Thanks to Logan Almy via John Walker)
5.1. Cosmological Argument (Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas)
5.1.1. Every existent thing has a cause
5.1.2. This universe is an existent thing (an effect)
5.1.3. Therefore, this universe has a cause
5.1.4. The cause of this universe is God (who has being in Himself)
5.2. Teleological Argument (William Paley)- design implies there is a Designer
5.2.1. Things that have harmony and order admit to having design (e.g. a watch)
5.2.2. Something having design has an intelligent designer.
5.2.3. This universe has harmony and order (natural laws, etc.)
5.2.4. Therefore, this universe has design
5.2.5. Therefore, this universe has an intelligent designer
5.2.6. The intelligent designer of the universe is God
5.3. Ontological Argument (Descartes, St. Anselm)
5.3.1. We have a concept in our mind of God as the greatest conceivable being
5.3.2. Therefore, God at least exists in the mind as the greatest conceivable being
5.3.3. It is greater to exist (in terms of being) in reality than to exist in the mind alone
5.3.4. Suppose God does not exist in reality but in our mind alone
5.3.5. If God, the greatest conceivable being, exists in the mind alone, then we could conceive of him being greater, that is, conceive of him existing in reality
5.3.6. This means that we could conceive of a being greater than the greatest conceivable being
5.3.7. Since a contradiction cannot be true and God either exists in the mind alone or in reality (with or without the mind), God must necessarily exist in reality
5.4. Transcendental Argument/ Moral Argument (Kant, Van Til, William Lane Craig, Gregory Bahnsen)- Argues that science, logic, and morality all presuppose the existence of the Christian God
5.4.1. There are certain law-like presuppositions involved in science, logic, and morality. These include but are not limited to laws of logic and reason, e.g. the law of non-contradiction
5.4.2. These presuppositions are either objective, universal standards OR subjective, relative conventions.
5.4.3. If they are not the objective, universal standards as they are assumed to be, then science, logic, and morality become impossible because there is no foundational standard of meaningful discussion. Cf. The assertion, “Two plus two equals four,” excludes the possibility of two plus two equaling five, negative eight, or two hundred. This is because there are certain presuppositions involved in mathematics as being necessarily true, objective and universal.
5.4.4. Moreover, the objective, universal preconditions of science, logic, and morality cannot be explained by chance because of their (a) universal nature among all people (e.g. Every rational human being agrees that X cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, the law of non-contradiction) and (b) their continuity over time (We are relatively certain that gravity will be true tomorrow)
5.4.5. Things not explained by chance are explained by intention, purpose, and design
5.4.6. Intentional, purposeful, objective, universal laws presuppose the existence of an intelligent being called God
No comments:
Post a Comment