Peter Espeut | The reasonableness of belief

This week, Christians of older tradition observe the beginning of the Advent season which prepares for the celebration of the Incarnation at Christmas. As St Paul so aptly writes, the idea that God (pure spirit), the Creator, should take on flesh and become part of the material world, is a scandal to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles (that is, the rational philosophers).

Secularists consider people of faith to be benighted and irrational, driven by superstition rather than reason. But is belief in God all that unreasonable? I agree that it is impossible to logically prove the existence of God; such proof would be undesirable, for it would make faith unnecessary.

But honest secularists have to admit that it is impossible to logically prove a negative; the old axiom is true, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Even though philosophers cannot prove the reality of God, it is possible to show that belief in God is reasonable – or at worst, not unreasonable.

Here, I will outline three sources of material which philosophers have used as evidence for the existence of God; not proof, mind you, but evidence to be weighed by the reasonable person.

THE WORLD

1. First, there is the experience of wonder at the fact that there is a world at all! There is no logical imperative that demands there should be a world. Why, then, do we have one?

Since the world is not self-explanatory, it is not unreasonable to postulate a ground for its existence. [In metaphysics, one thing is said to ‘ground’ another when the first, in some way, accounts for the being or existence of the second]. Such a ground would have to be transcendent vis-à-vis the world; that is, it could not be less than the world itself.

The philosopher could postulate that ‘God’ is the ‘ground of being’, which corresponds to most people’s idea of ‘God’ as ‘Creator’.

MORAL OBLIGATION

2. Second, there is the experience of moral obligation. Sometimes we do things, not because it is in our interest, but because they seem intrinsically right. If we left them undone, we might say that we could not live with ourselves. It seems to be beyond a matter of rational ethics. Sometimes it seems that particular values we include in our value system are not values that we have created.

Some sceptics may say that it is pre-conditioning from parents, church, or society that has transmitted these values to us, rather than that they are somehow innate, and therefore evidence for the existence of God.

On the other hand, many persons have conversion experiences where their consciences have led them to break away from moral consensus to a new level of moral awareness. Where would that have come from?

And so the experience of moral obligation is not so easily dismissed, and it points towards the existence of a supremely holy one as its own ultimate explanation.

DISSATISFACTION

3. Third, the greatest single source of religious belief may be the experience of our own dissatisfaction with any of the objects we can attain in this world.

Of course we have certain drives – towards eating, drinking, sexual intimacy, and so forth; but the satisfaction of these drives is only temporary, leaving us wanting more.

And afterwards, we are still left with questions such as: What is the meaning of life? Where will I find lasting happiness?

Feeding our appetites does not lead to lasting satisfaction on a personal level. None of these questions finds any full solution within the world.

So, a being in a world, with no goal in the world, and that being’s capacity to know and need to love appears to be endless, then perhaps the goal of this creature’s striving lies beyond this world, and may be what religions call God.

Three more next week!

Peter Espeut is a philosopher and theologian, and is dean of studies at St Michael’s Theological College. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.