![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/09\/NebulaTarantula.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is a follow-up dialogue with my friend, atheist Anthrotheist<\/a>, concerning my recent article, \u201cSeidensticker Folly #13: God Hasta Prove<\/em> He Exists!\u201d<\/a> Seidensticker stated (as recorded in that paper):<\/p>\n Let\u2019s make clear what compelling evidence for God would look like. This wouldn\u2019t simply be the clouds parting one day just as you wondered if God existed. It wouldn\u2019t be unexpectedly coming across a photo of a beloved relative who had died. I\u2019m talking about something really compelling\u2014something like everyone in the world having the same dream the same night in which God simply and clearly summarizes his plan. Could that be dismissed as alien technology or mind-control drugs rather than God? Perhaps, but this evidence would be vastly more compelling than the feeble arguments apologists are saddled with today.<\/p>\n Anthrotheist\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I\u2019m trying to pin down the dream example\u2019s basic premises, as they apply to evidence of God\u2019s existence. The best I can come up with is:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. The event is (mostly) universal. Everyone in the world has the same dream on the same night, which means that at least a large part of half the world had the dream at the same time (given that the other half would hear about it before their day was over).<\/span><\/p>\n 2. The event is unprecedented. Presumably, the dream plays out in exactly the same manner (thus being the exact same dream) all over the world. It doesn\u2019t fit any particular cultural expectations nor resemble any particular history, legend, or fable.<\/span><\/p>\n 3. The event is consistent across cultures. Similar to number two, but more how it is interpreted; while the meaning (and certainly the portent) of the dream will vary depending on the culture, the dream itself is independently identical everywhere. It\u2019s like everyone in a room can come up with different explanations for why there is a giant cat walking around, but everyone is definitely seeing the same tiger.<\/span><\/p>\n 4. The event has God at its center. There\u2019s no cloud of symbolism or metaphor, no obtuse and cryptic language employed; as Bob said, \u201c\u2026God simply and clearly summarizes his plan.\u201d There\u2019s no way to mistake God for something or someone else, and there\u2019s nothing obfuscating the message (at least its transmission, there can always be confusion in its reception).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Taken together, it would defy scientific explanation. No drug, technology, technique, illness, nor combination of any or all of those things is sufficient to explain the phenomenon. It\u2019s certainly possible to rationalize it, ignore it, or deny it, but that would be rarer outliers. Over time, if nothing else similar happened ever again and no amount of investigation produced any reasonable explanation, it is easy to imagine that people would wonder less about it as they moved on with their day-to-day lives. The next generation, who never experienced it, would have all the stories and passions from the people who were there when it happened. A hundred years later, there would be records of it. It would be hard to deny that it happened, given it\u2019s world-wide scope, but it would be easier as time passed to discredit it as being any particular God, and without any repeat of it perhaps even being from a God at all.<\/span><\/p>\n The points Bob probably intended to counter seem clear. Christianity emerged in one tiny part of the world, and nowhere else on Earth are the same stories told. Christianity emerged from existing cultures and religions, with many of its stories closely resembling older legends familiar to the area (but again, unheard of elsewhere in the world). All the world religions have similar histories, and all of them have followers that have subjective experiences of their god(s). This example would fairly well defy any of them, including but not exclusive to Christianity.<\/span><\/p>\n Well, I can agree that if this actually happened<\/em>, it would be compelling for a lot of people (even ultra-skeptic \/ hyper-rationalist Bob, who suggested<\/em> it!). I\u2019m interested in the deeper questions, though (and I think we could potentially have some interesting dialogue concerning these matters):<\/p>\n 1) What is an objective measure by which one can determine that \u201cx amount of evidence\u201d is sufficient for Person A (ostensibly atheist) or, all<\/em> people, to believe in God\u2019s existence? On what [objective \/ rational] basis is such a claim made?<\/p>\n 2) If that question is answered, how does the person who holds it apply it (logically and epistemologically) to all other<\/em> human beings?<\/p>\n 3) How do two people even have a rational discussion about how much evidence \u2014 and what sort \u2014 is required to believe in God? What are the criteria or framework within which such a discussion takes place?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n These are mainly rhetorical questions and perhaps ultimately unanswerable (at least in certain senses) for those on either side, but I think they indicate the complexity<\/em> of this issue. It\u2019s not simple or easy at all. I think you are the sort of atheist who can have (and is willing to have) this conversation, because you don\u2019t come around mocking and condescending and assuming that the Christian is an idiot, who has no legitimate reasons whatsoever for his or her views.<\/p>\n As I noted in my earlier paper, Christians believe that God has<\/em>\u00a0indeed<\/em> already sufficiently revealed Himself, so that speculations about what He \u201cmust\u201d or \u201cought to\u201d do, from atheists, are a bit comical and beside the point, from our perspective. These proposals presuppose that God hasn\u2019t revealed Himself at all, or insufficiently for all people, or for thinking \/ more educated people, etc. We think He has<\/em>, through and in what He has made<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0(tied in \u2014 for thinking, philosophically astute Christians \u2014 to the teleological and cosmological arguments):<\/p>\n Romans 1:19-20<\/strong> (RSV) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.\u00a0\u00a0[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, of course, the atheist says, \u201cwho cares<\/em> about that? It\u2019s just the Bible saying what we would expect<\/em> it to say; but it\u2019s circular reasoning to cite the Bible to prove<\/em> the Bible . . .\u201d For my part, I\u2019m not trying to prove<\/em> the point at the moment, so I\u2019m not engaged in circular reasoning or begging the question. I\u2019m simply reporting (sociologically) what Christians believe. We believe that the Bible is God\u2019s inspired revelation, on many other grounds, and so we accept what it teaches, including this passage.<\/p>\n How we would flesh out Romans 1 philosophically would be to utilize the teleological<\/a> and cosmological<\/a> arguments. But I\u2019d like to highlight the thought in Romans 1 in particular. Is it true that the thinking person can simply view the universe and the marvels of science and have a rational basis for thinking that it suggests God or some sort of Higher Power (either personal or impersonal) or \u201corganizing \/ creative principle\u201d (or whatever way one would like to describe it)? I submit that some very great minds (and not Christian minds) have indeed had that reaction.<\/p>\n David Hume<\/strong> was a deist (not an atheist<\/a>: as is wrongly assumed by many). It is thought that he dismantled the teleological argument. But many good Hume scholars maintain that he disposed of merely one form<\/em> of it: not all<\/em> forms. He appears to offer support for my contention, from Romans 1, that the observable world bears witness to God\u2019s existence:<\/p>\n The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind.\u00a0(Treatise<\/i>, 633n)<\/p>\n Wherever I see order, I infer from experience that\u00a0there<\/i>, there hath\u00a0been Design and Contrivance . . . the same principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect from the Infinite Art and Contrivance which is displayed in the whole fabric of the\u00a0 universe.\u00a0(Letters<\/i>, 25-26)<\/p>\n The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion . . .<\/p>\n Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system . . .<\/p>\n All things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is\u00a0adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author.\u00a0(Natural History of Religion<\/i>, 1757, edited by H. E. Root, London: 1956, 21, 26)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That is a philosophical<\/em> argument (not a religious \/ theological one), tying into scientific observation, from a non-Christian philosopher of great repute, in general, and among atheists. And it precisely (rather spectacularly, I would say) backs up what St. Paul states, in the Bible, in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans.<\/p>\n As my second corroborating example, I submit Albert Einstein<\/strong>, who was some sort of pantheist (\u201cGod is everything\u201d) or panentheist (\u201cGod is in everything\u201d) \u2014 assuredly not<\/em> an atheist \u2013, but who backs up to a significant degree, the thought that Paul expresses in Romans 1 and that Christians believe (in faith, but backed up by philosophy). I\u2019ve collected many of his statements concerning religion and the marvels of the universe<\/a>. Here are several of those (further detailed source information is provided in that paper):<\/p>\n My comprehension of\u00a0God\u00a0comes from the\u00a0deeply felt conviction\u00a0of a\u00a0superior intelligence\u00a0that reveals itself in the knowable world. In common terms, one can describe it as\u00a0\u2018pantheistic\u2019\u00a0(Spinoza). (1923)<\/p>\n My\u00a0religiosity\u00a0consists of a\u00a0humble admiration\u00a0of the\u00a0infinitely superior spirit\u00a0that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That\u00a0deeply emotional conviction\u00a0of the presence of a\u00a0superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of\u00a0God.\u00a0(1927)<\/p>\n Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations,\u00a0there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable.\u00a0Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious. (1927)<\/p>\n I believe in\u00a0Spinoza\u2019s God\u00a0who reveals himself in\u00a0the harmony of all that exists, . . . (1929)<\/p>\n A\u00a0knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms\u00a0\u2014 it is\u00a0this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man.\u00a0. . . Enough for me the\u00a0mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling\u00a0of the\u00a0marvellous structure of reality, . . . (1930)<\/p>\n I\u2019m\u00a0not an atheist\u00a0and I don\u2019t think I can call myself a\u00a0pantheist<\/a>. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows\u00a0someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a\u00a0mysterious order\u00a0in the\u00a0arrangement\u00a0of the books but doesn\u2019t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is\u00a0the attitude of even the most intelligent human being\u00a0toward\u00a0God. We see a universe\u00a0marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the\u00a0mysterious force\u00a0that moves the constellations. (1930)<\/p>\n [E]veryone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that\u00a0a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe \u2014 a spirit vastly superior to that of man,\u00a0and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must\u00a0feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a\u00a0religious feeling of a special sort, . . . (1936)<\/p>\n Then there are the\u00a0fanatical atheists\u00a0whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can\u2019t hear\u00a0the music of the spheres.\u00a0(1941)<\/p>\n In view of such\u00a0harmony in the cosmos\u00a0which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet\u00a0people who say there is no God. But\u00a0what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. (c. 1941)<\/p>\n My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand deeply\u00a0the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as \u201claws of nature.\u201d\u00a0It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality. (1954)<\/p>\n [see also, Chapter Ten of my book,\u00a0Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies?<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(2010, 301 pages) ]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is essentially what we Christians are contending, in using Romans 1 as a starting-point for our thought. Hume and Einstein back it up: it\u2019s rational to look out at the universe and conclude that it suggests (and beyond that: basically proves<\/em>) that God (or something beyond mere matter) exists. The teleological argument is not dead at all. I would say, to the contrary, that it is more compelling than ever, based on our increasingly detailed observations of the wonders of the universe. I opined, in my paper about Einstein\u2019s religious views:<\/p>\n If even rigorous philosophical and scientific minds like\u00a0David Hume\u00a0and Einstein look at the universe and immediately sees some sort of Intelligence behind it (though not the\u00a0Christian\u00a0<\/i>God), surely there is something to even Paul\u2019s assertion of the \u201cplainness\u201d of God\u2019s existence, in Romans 1. . . .<\/p>\n Now, I would ask an atheist: whence comes Einstein\u2019s \u201cdeeply felt conviction\u201d? Is it a philosophical reason or the end result of a syllogism? He simply\u00a0has<\/i>\u00a0it. It is an intuitive or instinctive feeling or \u201cknowledge\u201d or \u201csense of wonder at the incredible, mind-boggling marvels of the universe\u201d. Atheists don\u2019t possess this intuition, but my point is that it is not utterly implausible or unable to be held by even the most rigorous, \u201cnon-dogmatic\u201d intellects, such as Einstein and Hume. And the atheist has to\u00a0account\u00a0for that fact somehow, it seems to me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And, following such thought, this is why we think it is unnecessary<\/em> for some extraordinary demonstration to take place, in order for God to prove that He exists, to the satisfaction of every atheist. He already has<\/em> done so. Why atheists have somehow missed<\/em> it, is the mystery for us<\/em>: not why God hasn\u2019t done something that there is no need<\/em> for Him to do.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> NASA image<\/a> from the Hubble Space Telescope (4-23-12). Star-forming region 30 Doradus, also known as the Tarantula Nebula because its glowing filaments resemble spider legs.\u00a0The nebula is located in the neighboring galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud, and is one of the largest star-forming regions located close to the Milky Way. At the center of 30 Doradus, thousands of massive stars are blowing off material and producing intense radiation along with powerful winds. The Chandra X-ray Observatory detects gas that has been heated to millions of degrees by these stellar winds and also by supernova explosions. These X-rays, colored blue in this composite image, come from shock fronts\u2013similar to sonic booms\u2013formed by this high-energy stellar activity.\u00a0The Hubble data in the composite image, colored green, reveals the light from these massive stars along with different stages of star birth, including embryonic stars a few thousand years old still wrapped in cocoons of dark gas. Infrared emission data from Spitzer, seen in red, shows cooler gas and dust that have giant bubbles carved into them. These bubbles are sculpted by the same searing radiation and strong winds that comes from the massive stars at the center of 30 Doradus. [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is a follow-up dialogue with my friend, atheist Anthrotheist, concerning my recent article, \u201cSeidensticker Folly #13: God Hasta Prove He Exists!\u201d Seidensticker stated (as recorded in that paper): Let\u2019s make clear what compelling evidence for God would look like. This wouldn\u2019t simply be the clouds parting one day just as you wondered if God […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":23403,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,112,172],"tags":[4115,1043,1048,258,335,6336,1241,1044,5669,6333,662,4145,119,6339,1047,253,1067],"class_list":["post-23394","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-philosophy-science","category-trinitarianism-christology","tag-albert-einstein","tag-anti-theism","tag-argument-from-design","tag-atheism","tag-atheists","tag-christian-evidences","tag-cosmological-argument","tag-david-hume","tag-evidence-for-god","tag-gods-existence","tag-intelligent-design","tag-michael-behe","tag-philosophy-of-religion","tag-proof-of-god","tag-teleological-argument","tag-theistic-arguments","tag-theistic-proofs"],"yoast_head":"\n