Lord's Day Reflection by Peter Lumpkins

After offering a valuable definition of religion in their widely used textbook on philosophy of religion,** philosophers Beverly & Brian Clack (brother & sister) raise an interesting question:

If God's existence can be 'proved', this would seem to suggest that God is an object amongst other objects" (p.8).

    For example, I am staying with some life-long friends in Louisville.  I believe they exist and have ways to measure my belief.  I drive to their house; I sleep in their guestroom; I eat Sharon's award-winning coconut cake; I beat Jim at ping-pong; I can even hear him snore at night.  All of these  and more are ways to detect my friends exist.  In fact, even more scientific ways could be established were it necessary.

My friends are objects I can study, using several empirical means by which to gather reliable information.  As for men, so with mountains and monkeys--each its own set of empirical means by which to 'prove' its existence. 

Question:  Is God an object of study like mountains, men, or monkeys?  Is God the same kind of entity I can prove in my laboratory of life?

Perhaps Saint Anselm was correct after all: while our faith seeks understanding, our understanding  does not seek faith. Or, Tertullian  before him:  What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Selah.

With that, I am...

Peter

 

**The Philosophy of Religion:  A Critical Introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge: 1998

Comments

[Byroniac]

So, what do they say about the personal life of Christ as deity in human flesh? For His contemporaries, He was an "object" amongst other "objects" with a material body that could be "tested," interacted with, and observed, just like our human friends, by those like John who were friends of the Bridegroom. Part of the foundation for our faith rests in their witness of the physical, living Lord (case in point, the Resurrection).

And, what exactly is proof? God the Father is a Spirit, but He is able to reveal Himself in such a way that proves His existence to believers who receive revelation of Him (I'm reminded of Romans 10:17 ESV, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."). I agree with Saint Anselm and Tertullian, though. My problem is, I do not like faith without understanding, or blind faith (and never have). If it were possible to do away with faith altogether and make it all sight, I would have that instead in a heartbeat, but that's just the way my mind works (or not).

[Bob Cleveland]

I've always preferred to opt for that which requires the most faith in me. If we could prove any of this other than Scripturally and Spiritually, evangelism would amount to little more than presenting evidence in a courtroom. And it surely wouldn't require the convicting power of the Holy Ghost.

I probably would not be interested in that. Besides, the Bible doesn't say the just shall live by acknowledging "proven facts".

[Byroniac]

Bob Cleveland, I think you are right. However, I'm simply unable (more likely, unwilling) ever opt for whatever "requires the most faith in me." I either can't or won't do that. In fact, I tend to get uncomfortable when people emphasize faith to the point where it seems what you can observe and reason just do not matter. If evangelism was simply presenting solid evidence in a courtroom, I would prefer that, because I can understand it and control my reaction to it. It makes me comfortable. But I guess God doesn't work that way (He sure hasn't done it that way in my life!).

But ironically enough, I guess that's why personally I'm a presuppositionalist instead of an evidentialist when it comes to evangelism: there's not enough evidence in the world to convince me, so it takes the Sovereign power of God's Holy Spirit to open my heart to the Word like God did for Lydia listening to Paul. I don't know for sure exactly why, but Moses saw a burning bush, Gideon got proof by fleece, and Paul saw an overpowering light. The phrase, "impossible to believe" comes to mind, like apparently was the situation in Athens in Acts 17.

[Byroniac]

Sorry, typos...

Bob Cleveland, I think you are right. However, I'm simply unable (more likely, unwilling) to ever opt for whatever "requires the most faith in me." I either can't or won't do that. In fact, I tend to get uncomfortable when people emphasize faith to the point where it seems that observation and reason just do not matter. If evangelism was simply presenting solid evidence in a courtroom, I would prefer that, because I can understand it and control my reaction to it. It makes me comfortable. But I guess God doesn't work that way or want me to be comfortable in that way (He sure hasn't done it that way in my life!).

But ironically enough, I guess that's why personally I'm presuppositional instead of being an evidentialist in evangelism: there's not enough evidence in the world to convince me, so it takes the Sovereign power of God's Holy Spirit to open my heart to the Word like God did for Lydia listening to Paul. I don't know for sure exactly why, but Moses saw a burning bush, Gideon got proof by fleece, and Paul saw an overpowering light. The phrase, "impossible to believe" comes to mind, like apparently was the situation in Athens in Acts 17. I've never been comfortable with faith, so I've got to be one of those, "O ye of little faith" types.