Will and grace, and faith
The 20thcentury British philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell famously blamed the God he didn’t believe in for his lack of faith. When presented with the possibility that he was mistaken about God’s existence and asked how he would defend himself when confronted by the Almighty, he said he would ask why God hadn’t given him better evidence. I hope the angels had video cameras in 1970, ‘cause I sure would like to have witnessed that meeting.
Most atheists today would claim the same – not enough evidence. But as evidence is subject to interpretation, and there’s enough of it for us theists, I suspect God’s answer to Russell would have been something akin to, “To him who sees, more evidence is given. But to him who chooses not to see, even the evidence he has is taken away.” 1
Faith is indubitably bound up with the will. Some evidence seems overwhelming enough to leave no room for doubt, but it still requires the engagement of our will. I see my body; I have thoughts, memories and experiences. It’s an easy choice, but a choice nonetheless to believe that I exist. There are some who question it.
But evidences for what we cannot see or haven’t observed are less than undeniably conclusive, and require faith, which springs from the will. We see this played out every day in our courts, when a man or woman is tried for a crime based on forensic evidence, which is used to reconstruct an event that no one but the perpetrator witnessed and cannot be repeated. The jurors must examine and interpret the evidence, and choose to believe either that the accused is guilty or is not.
In a recent post, I bemoaned the fact that many of my loved ones have chosen to believe differently than I do. We all are pretty much looking at the same evidence and coming up with different conclusions. Will God excuse those who have rejected him based on an argument of insufficient evidence? Though he is infinitely merciful, and none of us in our finiteness can be quite certain how he will reconcile justice and mercy in the eternal lives of others, I am convinced such an argument would be summarily rejected.
When Jesus the Son and Image of the invisible God walked the earth, he healed the sick with a word or touch, fed over 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes, and raised the dead. Yet the religious leaders wanted to kill him, and multitudes who witnessed his miracles still did not believe in him. Of them he said, “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” 2 I think Jesus here is speaking about the same kind of people he called out in John 9, which I referenced before, as those who say they can see but would become blind.
It’s a bit confusing, but I believe the distinction is this: those who see but do not see in Matthew 13 and those who say they can see in John 9, are individuals who have all the evidence they need to believe in God, but are turning a blind eye to the truth revealed and choosing instead, because of pride, greed, rebellion…whatever, to conclude it to be insufficient.
Those who might assert innocence because they did not understand would also have their complaint rejected. God holds us accountable for understanding, because that too is an act of the will. The Greek word translated “understand” in the New Testament means to bring together. We might express it as connecting the dots. He does not expect us to understand everything about him, only what has been revealed to us for our salvation, if we are willing to see it and make the connections.
Bertrand Russell was a man of great intelligence. Unfortunately, as so often happens, his keen intellect fostered a sense of pride and self-sufficiency which governed his will and compromised his understanding. No human being can compare with the intelligence of God, but he chooses to align himself with and receive only those who come to him like little children….humble and dependent, and aware of their relative ignorance. What seems foolish to the self-proclaimed intelligentsia, the preeminent Mind uses to draw people to himself.
It is the gospel of grace, through childlike faith, as an act of the will.
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 3
1 Matthew 13:12
2 Matthew 13:13
31 Corinthians 1:21
That’s circular reasoning – you can’t have evidence because you don’t believe there’s evidence but as soon as you believe enough not to need any evidence, you’ll get some, but not of sufficient quality to convince anyone who doesn’t already believe. And if you choose not to accept a situation where you don’t get proof until after you’ve committed, you burn in hell. Pretty ropey logic. No earthly court would accept this, so why should God be held to a lower standard?
LikeLike
It is a judgment on the one who has enough evidence but refuses – not is unable – refuses to respond in faith.
There is enough evidence of God’s existence to make it believable beyond a reasonable doubt. Expecting “proof” is an unreasonable rejection of the grace God has given in how he has already revealed himself.
LikeLike
If that were true, then religious people wouldn’t keep talk about the need for faith, or the concept that faith is a gift (which is my understanding, rather than faith being a Nietzschian act of will). You can’t uncover God with formal logic, archaeology, mathematics or appeals to the natural world – and many sincere people have tried.
Belief in God – and, most particularly, belief in this specific manifestation of the Christian God – requires faith alone.
There are people who have looked at the evidence for religion in good conscience and found it lacking. So if religion is true, then either God did not equip them with good enough tools to discover it, or it can’t be revealed by rational enquiry. Either way, it seems a bit unfair to send the nonbelievers to hell based on not accepting proof which isn’t there to find.
LikeLike
I can accept that people “have looked at the evidence for religion…and found it lacking.” That’s different than implying that there is none and that theism is solely a matter of faith and no evidence.
If I charged that atheists have no evidence for the theory of evolution, because I find it lacking as an explanation for all life, you would cry Foul. Yet it requires just as much faith as theism, if not more, because no one can prove that all life forms originated from non-life, much less that the universe exploded into being from nothing. The evidence cited for evolution, other than slight changes within species, is far from conclusive. Those who hold to it as an explanation for all that is must use faith to cross the gap between what is observed and what is theorized.
There is logical evidence for God, as well as archeological, natural, and I would argue even mathematical. You choose to reject it; I choose to believe it.
LikeLike
Without knowing what evidence you’re alluding to, I can’t evaluate it. But just on evolution – it’s not true to say that it’s faith based. People who accept evolution are accepting the science as the best explanation we have at present for the observable facts and evidence. If the evidence were to sharply change – say the Hadron Collider gave us a new understanding of physics that we hadn’t dreamed of before – there would be people clinging on to evolution, but eventually the new paradigm would take over as the weight of evidence accumulated.
I remember debating creationists when I was at university 20 years ago, based on the biology I was being taught in class. Well, a lot of that biological knowledge has been augmented by new knowledge, or even completed overturned by discoveries in genetics, and scientists have embraced the new information – often after fierce fighting! – but all I hear from creationists are the same arguments that were false 20 years ago. The same mistakes about fossils or vestigial organs or whatever keep getting repeated, even though the authors know full well that they are presenting factually incorrect information e.g. repeating the claim that there are no transitional fossils, when you can look up dozens on Wikipedia and even get pictures.
Also, atheism and evolution aren’t synonyms. There are many very devout people who are, nevertheless, outstanding scientists.
Even if evolution was completely bogus, it still doesn’t mean there’s plenty of evidence for God. Belief MUST be taken on faith – or on personal revelation which, while meaningful for the person involved, can’t be evidence for anybody else – so the idea that people are sent to hell because they couldn’t wrap their heads aren’t a particular religious world view is pretty horrible, to be honest. I mean, what if somebody did all the hard yards, then said “yes! I believe!” and decided to be Jewish? They would also burn in hell, apparently, even though they were devout and fervent in their belief in God.
LikeLike
“Accepting the science as the best explanation” is faith. “Best” implies there are other explanations that can be considered. If no faith was required, there would be one undeniable explanation and we would all believe it.
The fossils are what they are. Deeming them “transitional” is an interpretation of the evidence. Like Archaeopteryx. It looks like a bird but has some features that modern birds do not, so evolutionists see it as an intermediary form. But it doesn’t have “transitional” features like part scales, part feathers, which we should expect to see if new life forms evolved from existing ones. It’s probably just a bird that is now extinct. Scientists (evolutionists) disagree on what it is; it only supports macroevolution if you’re already a believer.
I appreciate that you acknowledge that many “outstanding scientists” are also believers in God. When intelligent men and women, particularly ones whose lives and work revolve around evaluating evidence, choose to believe, at the very least this should prompt one to admit that belief in God is not without basis in evidence.
As far as what happens to folks who don’t believe in Christ, it’s not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. God is loving and merciful and does not want any to perish. He has provided a remedy for our sin and has done everything necessary for all to be saved. But is it up to us to willingly turn to him.
LikeLike
If you’re using faith to mean ‘accepting scientific evidence’ then you have widened the definition of faith considerably. So much that it’s meaningless. Assuming a train will turn up more or less on time is now ‘faith’ in the same way that ‘I believe in God’ is faith. Or accepting a consensus view, that’s been built up by careful observation and experimentation is now faith.
Interesting what you say about fossils. It feels like a shift in tactics for creationists – they still go out of their way to deny that transitional fossils exist, but when confronted with actual fossils, come up with their own interpretation that doesn’t fit the available facts. I always wonder how well creationists would do if they were forced to debate the chemists and microbiologists whose work underpins a lot of what we know about evolutionary biology – if creationists had to come up with some actual science and talk in molecular terms. Or maybe they know they can’t and that’s why those debates never happen.
This, of course, is bait and switch, because accepting scientific evidence doesn’t say anything about whether God exists or not. It’s only a very small subset of Christians who believe that you have to abandon biology in order to have a relationship with God.
There are lots of intelligent people who believe in God. I don’t know that they came at their faith by evidence though. Maybe they grew up with their faith, or maybe they had a private revelation, or maybe they find religion comforting….
Anyway, I’ll end the discussion here. I would have been fascinated to hear about this evidence that you keep saying exists, but don’t give evidence for!
LikeLike
I felt it was safe to assume that if you’ve debated creationists, you’re aware of the evidence we believe points to the existence of God…the appearance of design in the universe, the moral law, the historical record of Jesus, the simple fact that anything exists at all.
I’m happy to end the discussion also, because it doesn’t look like we’re going to get anywhere with it. And I’m not here to try and win debates. I blog because I want others to know what I believe God has revealed about himself, and about us. For his glory, and for their good. For your good.
When you in the quiet, in the solitude of your mind, acknowledge the longings for eternal things, and a love that is everlasting and unconditional, I hope you will remember that believers have told you there is One who will satisfy them. And that you will one day humbly seek him.
LikeLike