“All thinking men are atheists.” — Ernest Hemingway
“God is a comedian playing to an audience that is too afraid to laugh.” ― Voltaire
Is it possible to prove there is a God? If you could, why would you want to? As Charles Darwin once said, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlastingly punished.”
He has a point. And I think it is an important one, but not for the reasons he may have intended. He means to enlighten us to the cruelty of Christian doctrine and to demonstrate that no rational person would want or argue for such doctrines to be true. But of course this is nonsensical. Whether deliberately or not, he overlooks the obvious fact that nothing is true simply because one wants it to be. One might think a Christian absurd for wanting fiction to be true, but how is that any different from wanting something true to be fiction?
I think we can all agree that if something is true, then it is so whether we want it to be or not. But, as I said, I think Darwin makes an important point. He demonstrates, I believe, the real motivation behind all of this so-called “disbelief”. When the stakes are high, belief is hard. It is the coward who hides his eyes in denial. And why? He does so for the basest of reasons — it is simply convenient. And if there is one thing in which Western Civilization has excelled, it is convenience.
I don’t mean to pick on Darwin. He was not an unintelligent man. There are many famous men and women from whom we could snatch a thought on the subject of atheism and the apparent absurdity of faith in a living God. In fact, the wealth of writing on the subject teaches us something very important. The evidence would suggest that fame does not inoculate one from foolishness. Folly comes in all shapes and sizes, but there seems to be a special kind of stupid that is reserved for smart people. This is a special kind of blindness that is preceded by the word, “wilfully”.
How do you show something to someone who has their hands over their own eyes? It is difficult. But there are those who seem to try. Why, I have no idea. But when they make their attempt at “proof”, they will usually reach for one of three arguments, like trying different tools on a rusted nut that just won’t turn. There are several tactics one might use, but arguments for the existence of God tend to focus on three of the most influential: the cosmological argument, the design argument, and the argument from religious experience. Let us take a glance at these before we dismiss them all together. These definitions have been sampled from the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
The Cosmological Argument
The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God.
From these facts, philosophers and theologians argue by inference to the best explanation that a first cause, sustaining cause, unmoved mover, necessary being, or personal being (God) exists that caused and/or sustains the universe.
To put it simply, if there is an effect then that is evidence of a cause. If there is a watch, there must be a watchmaker. An oversimplified example of this would be what Ronald Reagan once said, “Sometimes when I'm faced with an atheist, I am tempted to invite him to the greatest gourmet dinner that one could ever serve, and when we have finished eating that magnificent dinner, to ask him if he believes there's a cook.”
Teleological Argument (aka the Design Argument)
Some phenomena within nature exhibit such exquisiteness of structure, function or interconnectedness that many people have found it natural to see a deliberative and directive mind behind those phenomena. The mind in question is typically taken to be supernatural.
Philosophically inclined thinkers have both historically and at present laboured to shape the relevant intuition into a more formal, logically rigorous inference. The resultant theistic arguments, in their various logical forms, share a focus on plan, purpose, intention, and design, and are thus classified as teleological arguments (or, frequently, as arguments from or to design).
To put this another way, it is not simply that something exists or that there is an effect, but that there is design to it. It happens on purpose and in a certain way. There is a mechanism involved. An example of this type of argument might be what Isaac Newton said, “Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” This argument would say, the evidence for God from the existence of the human eyeball is not only in that it exists, but in the seeming impossibility of its design.
The Religious Experience Argument
An argument from religious experience states that experiences are in all relevant respects like sensory experiences. Sensory experiences are excellent grounds for beliefs about the physical world, so religious experiences are excellent grounds for religious beliefs.
To explain this argument, you might say that we trust our senses everyday to judge the truth of reality, so why should I not trust my senses when a religious experience is encountered? It was Immanuel Kant who said, “All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.”
These arguments say the existence of creation makes it probable that there is a creator, and the genius and precision of its design make it probable that there is a mind, a person who has designed it on purpose. I am able to reason this because of what I see, hear, smell, taste and touch everyday all around me. These rational arguments would posit that the existence of God is not only possible but probable.
There are other arguments, of course, that would look at the nature that is not only without us, but also that which is within us, such as the existence of the conscience: the law that seems to guide all of us above and beyond culture. I think C. S. Lewis put it best when he wrote in Mere Christianity:
“If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. …I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to … But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.”
So the question is, do these arguments prove the existence of God? Well, the truth is, I couldn’t care less. And I don’t think you should either. I was once asked by a Persian man, “What would you say to me if I asked you to give me three reasons to believe in God?” I looked him in the eye for about three or four seconds and responded, “I wouldn’t bother”. He asked me why, and I explained. “Why should I try to convince you of something you already believe?”
Do you remember Darwin’s quote at the beginning of this article? It is really quite a confession. I wonder if he ever realised, after having written it, just how much he tipped his hand. Humanity’s difficulty with the existence of God is not a lack of evidence or the want of a skilful tongue to explain it. The sad reality is there are those who choose not to “believe” because they want so bad for it not to be true. Apologetics are only useful to a person who has already decided to open their eyes. It is impossible to be eloquent when the person to whom you are speaking is deaf.
I will often ask individuals, “Who must we convince of the existence of God?” The biblical answer is no one.
Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
The Bible tells us that man already has the truth. It says that God has already manifested it in them and that God has already shewed it unto them. And not only has he done this, but has done it to such a degree so as to leave them without excuse.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
This passage reveals that those who claim there is no God are fools. It does not say they are unintelligent. A stupid man can still make wise decisions. What it says is that they are foolish. The Bible uses that word because it is the only way you can describe someone who wilfully denies something which they already know is true. It is like a man approaching a cliff who responds by closing his eyes. There is only one word for that.
This is the reality of our evangelistic encounters, whether it be a stranger, friend or a family member. Apologetics will never be the deciding factor in the salvation of a soul. That is because, like the devil himself, a lost man already believes in God. The problem is not that they refuse to believe. The problem is they refuse to bow. What they are in want of is not evidence, but humility.
Matthew 13:15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
I hope this truth will change your evangelistic disposition. The next time you share Christ with another person, don’t argue with them like you need to convince them of the veracity of your claims. Rather, with certainty and meekness, talk to them like they are someone who already knows what you are saying is true.
To hear more on Brian Clark’s heart for reaching the lost in an atheistic culture, check out this interview on the Postscript
Brian Clark is the pastor at Crossroads Baptist Church in London, England and the author of “Brand New” and resource to help you believers understand what it means to follow Christ.
