Can a Good God exist? An Atheist and Christian Debate the Problem of Evil (1)

   For those of you who may not know, I’m currently in a debate with The Worrywart, an atheist blogger.  We are debating the question: “does the existence of evil disprove the existence of God traditionally defined in the West as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good?”  My opponent has already posted an opening argument answering the question in the affirmative.  You can read his opening argument at this (Link).  I will negate the question by suggesting that the problem of evil does not constitute evidence that God does not exist. 
 

Opening statement

   I think it can be said that most people want to believe in God—at least they want to believe in a god who gives them what they want when they want it.  As famous Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis said, “What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like, ‘What does it matter so long as they are contented?’ We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven—a senile benevolence who, as they say, ‘liked to see young people enjoying themselves’ and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, ‘a good time was had by all.’”

  I believe in the existence of Evil and in the existence of God—and I further believe that it is rational to believe in both.  The problem of evil has been considered by many to be the greatest evidence against the existence of a loving God, because it does not make sense to man how the existence of evil and an all-loving being can exist at the same time.  My opponent believes that the existence of evil makes the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God irrational.  I will first respond to my opponent’s two arguments and then give several responses to the general problem of evil.

   My opponent in this debate, The Worrywart, has given an excellent summary of the problem of evil on his blog.  His research and knowledge of the subject are extensive.  He has defined the classical problem and included some new ideas as well.  I will present a basic outline of his arguments and respond to each of them and then provide several theodicies.  (A theodicy is a justification for the acts of God.)   

  The Worrywart provides two arguments: a deductive argument (that is based on supposedly contradictory statements) and an inductive argument (that is one based on supposed evidence.).

I. The Deductive Argument:

The Worrywart states it like this:

1.    If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

2.    If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

3.    If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

4.    If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

5.    Evil exists.

6.    If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.

7.    Therefore, God doesn't exist.

That this argument is valid is perhaps most easily seen by a reductio argument, in which one assumes that the conclusion — (7) — is false, and then shows that the denial of (7), along with premises (1) through (6), leads to a contradiction. Thus if, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This, together with (2), (3), and (4) then entails that God has the power to eliminate all evil, that God knows when evil exists, and that God has the desire to eliminate all evil. But when (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God exists, it then follows via modus ponens from (6) that either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Thus we have a contradiction, and so premises (1) through (6) do validly imply (7).

Analysis:

1) God does not have to act right now

     Simply put premise six is wrong.  For it assumes that God has to act right now—a good being does not necessarily have to “always” eliminate evil as far as it can right now.  This makes even more sense when you consider that God is not in space and time. He is not spatio-temporal—He exists eternally outside of time.  Thus, He may respond in our future (and His present) and the problem is averted.  Another way of considering this is that time is like a numbered line, but since God exists outside of time, He exists all along the number line—right now, in the past and in the future.  It becomes non-sensical to say that God has to act now, since there exists no “now” outside of time and space.  Thus, the  “contradictory statements” can be avoided.  And, as we will see, the argument can actually work in favor of the theistic worldview. 

   Norman Geisler has reconstituted the deductive argument in such a way that it turns into evidence for the existence of immortality.  He claims that based on the fact that God has not acted against evil yet (but does have to in the future) there will necessarily be a solution to the problem in the future.  In other words, God must act against evil in the future, thus there will be a perfect world.  Now if we accept that God does exist, than we have the solution to the problem of evil in this reconstitution of the argument. 

2) Free will defense

   Premise six is wrong again—for if there is a greater good served by His inaction than this argument is defeated.  Alvin Platinga has suggested that free will is this greater good.  His argument is highly technical and is beyond the length and breadth of this post.  (You can read his argument the highly acclaimed book “The Nature of Necessity”.)  Robert Adams and others (Gutting p. 106, Howard-Snyder & O’leary-Hawthorne p. 1) claim that the majority of philosophers have accepted the validity of Platinga’s defense, and claim that it solves the logical problem of evil.  Even William L. Rowe, who The Worrywart quotes in his post has said, “Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. Indeed, granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God.” ("The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” APQ 16 (1979) footnote 1, p. 335)

II. Inductive Argument

The Worrywart uses William L. Rowe’s version of the argument:

(1)    There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(2)    An omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(3)    Therefore there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

He further claims:

“The evidential problem of evil is the problem that I just don’t see any theistic answer to, the best they can do is side-step the issue or simply throw up their hands and say ‘I don’t know but I still believe.’” 

Analysis:

1)    How much evil is too much evil? 

   The argument above inherently assumes that there is too much evil—but this merely leads one to the question: how much evil is too much evil?  The atheist needs to explain how much evil would constitute a state of equilibrium.  Further, the atheist must here provide some kind of value system for knowing how much evil constitutes a unit of evil.  For example, the atheist would have to assign a value to rape, murder, robbery, sneezing on each other, bad jokes, etc. 

  On a serious note though is one rape as evil as fifty rapes?  What makes something more evil than something else?  Another more pertinent example would be whether the death of an adult is more evil than the death of a child. 

   Since, and I’m assuming that it cannot be done, no value system exists it is meaningless to say that there is too much evil.  Because we don’t know how much evil would constitute equilibrium or how much evil would be less than equilibrium.

2)    God may have a greater good by allowing things to go as they are

     God would not have to theoretically act if something greater were to happen as a result of leaving the equilibrium as it is.  For example, if someone has a tumor that cannot be operated on without a great risk of losing his or her life, doctors might choose to leave the tumor as is for a time.  Maybe the problem of evil cannot be eliminated because a greater good will come from leaving it. 

   What is this greater good?  There are a number of possible reasons.  First, it would be direct violation of free will for God to stop suffering and evil—to me, this would be a much greater evil than letting evil go on unabated, since it would entail the destruction of the world as we know it.  I think if you asked most people if they would rather have evil and the world, or a world where they don’t have a choice they would prefer the first option (I’ll further clarify this argument throughout the debate).

  Second, it might make God’s final plan of heaven impossible.  Indeed, if God created the world knowing that the end result was a perfect heaven where people could only come as a result of living in a evil world—it would seem a greater good that God would allow evil to go on as it is. 

   These then are specific responses to the two arguments.  Now I’ll provide—some justifications for God’s action, or rather inaction. 

III. Theodicies and arguments from probability:

  As I said above, a theodicy is a general justification for God’s action.  There are many different kinds of theodicies out there—some of them more successful than others.  Some like Peter van Inwagen’s try to explain the existence of evil through a narrative, others like Richard Swinburne’s are based on logic.  I will focus on three theodicies: the existence of free will, Jesus’ own suffering for us and animal suffering.  I will also argue that theism is intrinsically probable based on naturalism’s inability to answer the problem of evil. 

1) Free Will

  I have already used part of the free will theodicy, but I will expand and use it as theodicy against all three kinds of evil.  “Free will” is our ability to act freely when presented with any situation that requires a choice—for example, when Adam and Eve were given the choice to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  This is the essence of free will—that our actions have side effects. 

  Some atheists claim that God should have created a world where there was less evil (i.e. that God could have created a world where we can only do good or where we cannot do as much evil as we do.) 

  But this is based on a common assumption that the omnipotence of God means that God can do anything.  This is not true.  For example, God cannot create round squares or round triangles—He cannot do something that is logically contradictory.  I would also argue here that God cannot create free-willed beings and only allow them to do what is right.  This would be the same as giving you five dollars and telling you that you can do whatever you want with it—and then, whenever you want to spend it on anything I don’t like, I stop you and take the five dollars from you.  This action is necessarily contradictory, thus God cannot do it.  I will probably refer back to this argument as we go forward, so keep it in mind. 

  The theodicy of free will also provides a specific response in cases of non-moral evil.  For example, non-moral evil could have been avoided if someone had acted on their own free will.  Most car crashes could be avoided by more responsible driving or maintenance—indeed, almost all crashes are the result of some kind of irresponsibility.  Even in cases of natural disaster, such as the Black Death humans cannot get an out-of- jail free card.  If people during the fourteenth century had actually cleaned their cities, then they have avoided most of the deaths. How can we blame God for the free actions of others?  As I pointed out above, if God gave us free will and then took it away, it would not be free will. 

  A further point within the context of free will is its response to natural evil.  Richard Swinburne has suggested that natural evils would be the expected result from a fallen world.  He also suggests that if God intervened, He would have created a “toy-world, a world where things matter, but not very much; where [people] can choose and our choices make a small difference, but the real choice remains God’s.” [Swinburne cited by Davies 1998, 171]. 

2) God suffered the same evil as us

    In my eyes, the best answer to the problem of evil is the claim that Christ took on the pain, suffering and sin of the world on the cross.  What this means is that for every E (evil), Jesus suffered the same E on the cross.  This answer is more theological than philosophical, but it does provide an emotional and, I believe, empirical answer to the problem of evil.  For, if Jesus did take all of the pain and evil in the world on His shoulders during His crucifixion, then this would solve the dilemma of the love of God.  For, if He suffered the same things as us than how can we claim that He does not care about us?  

   Further, it would seem logical to say that God did the only thing that He could do.  Why would God die unnecessarily?  If He’s omniscient, then He would know all of the possible solutions to the problem.  Christ’s death on the Cross would have to be the only way in which He could fix the problem—for if there was another way, God would have used it.  We can see this in Jesus’ last prayer at Gethsemane where He says, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”  (Luke 22:42, NIV). 

  When used with the theodicy that we simply cannot know why evil exists it makes for possibly the best answer to the problem. We can claim that for every E an X exists, which we don’t know, but for every E God also suffered the same E.  Thus the X probably exists. 

3) Animal Suffering

The Worrywart believes that there is no explanation for why animals must suffer.  The Worrywart claims,

“Perhaps the easiest example of pointless evil that no theodicy seems able to address is the existence of animal suffering…Animals existed millions of years before humans and were hunting and killing one another long before we showed up due to the fact that some of them desired the flesh of other animals to eat. Why didn’t God just make all animals herbivores?”

I have three responses: 

A)    God did create herbivores

  There are good reasons to believe that the animals in the Garden of Eden were herbivores.  So this is the way God created the world—then man, as the free moral creature, ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and took away the perfect world.

B)    Two possible causes

There are two possible causes for the fall of animals.  C.S. Lewis suggests that it is the result of Satan.  It also has been suggested that it is the result of man’s fall.  Regardless, the answer is in the next response. 

C)    They will be herbivores again

  It is clear that God will restore a perfect world like that of the Garden of Eden in heaven where animals will be herbivores once again (Isaiah 65:25, Hosea 2:18). 

4) The problem of good and evil for naturalism

  There are two problems for the atheist here.  First, the atheist must assume that God exists to claim that evil exists.  Second, the atheists probably cannot explain the existence of evil in their own worldview.  In this argument, I will suggest that these two issues make theism more probable than atheism—because if the theodicies provided above do explain how God and evil can exist, than these argument will constitute evidence that theism is probably true. 

A) The moral argument

   There exists a large problem for the atheist who suggests that the problem of evil disproves God.  For evil to exist in any kind of absolute form—some kind of creator of absolute moral laws must exist.  It is a contradiction to say that A (being evil) disproves B (God), when the existence of A is contingent on the existence of B.  

  One may object that there is nothing absolute about evil.  But the problem here is that my opponent assumes that absolute morals do exist.  He assumes this when he suggests that Jose Stable was wrong for killing Ulysses.  But if murder weren't inherently wrong, then how can he claim that Ulysses’s death was tragic?  What basis does my opponent have for claiming that Robert Burdick was wrong for raping the sixteen women?  Maybe he was raped as a child.  But no, my opponent suggests that these things are inherently evil—that is that the act of rape is inherently wrong.  As C.S. Lewis points out, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.”

B) Atheism cannot explain evil.

    Even if the problem of evil does not assume that God does exist, there is still a problem for atheists—mainly that the problem of evil also exists for the atheist.  Because atheism must either disprove the existence of evil or explain how evil can epistemically mean anything to mere by products of chance.  For every E (an instance of evil) there must be an X (explanation for E), but it is unclear how E and X can relate in world where E is not even supposed to exist.  In essence I’m arguing that there can be no meaningful epistemic definition of evil in the naturalist state, thus there can be no explanation for the existence of evil.  Because if you cannot define something, you obviously will not be able to explain it. 

   One might ask why the atheist has to do all of this work.  The answer is that atheism is like an enclosed box—if the existence of everything in that box cannot be potentially explained, then the box falls apart.  I would argue that evil represents an example of something that is potentially unexplainable.

  Thus, if this response is true than it makes atheism inherently improbable—thus making theism either more probable or at least as probable as atheism.  And I would argue that the other arguments for God's existence make theism inherently more probable. 

Conclusion

   I believe based on the above evidence that God does exist—and that the problem of evil does not disprove His existence.  I further believe that based on the above evaluation of the Worrywart’s arguments that the more simple answer is that God does exist.  I have made three separate cases in this post, first that both the deductive and inductive argument for God’s existence are not valid and second I have mounted three justifications of God’s actions and an argument for the improbability of the atheist system.  I look forward to the Worrywart’s response.  Feel free to ask questions or make comments about any part of my post or any related issues.

Humbly yours,
The Charger

You can read The Worrywart's response here.

A Crown of Sonnets by Tyler Hiebert

   I haven't let many people read my poetry outside of the classes I take at Wichita State—even though it is my minor, much of the poetry I write is either not worth publishing or of such a personal nature that I don't want to publish it.  However, I thought that I should at least give you one of my larger works.
  Over the last semester I've had to write all of my poetry in the rhymed, metered form of the sonnet, which I hate intensely.  For my final project I had to write a Corona of Sonnets (a crown of sonnets), which is a series of seven sonnets all on the same topic—each sonnet begins with the last line of the one before it.  I took some liberties with meter, but not with rhyme or sonnetical form.  (I got an A with it, so there!)

A night in the forest of death and life


By Tyler Hiebert

1 

The moment must end. Nature cannot live
Like God.  Love will be lost on me, time, oh!
If I could feel forever, you, forest give
This life to me.  Grant me a sight I know,
Only you can create.  I turn, in love at once
With fog which floods this vision, framing fire.
Like a blockade the fog pushes back affronts, 
Its ecclesiastical attire
As old as sun, moon and the stars.  Freeing
As breath, a moment for eternity.
As if death were dead and dying and king
Of no person.  Like God’s own arity. 
    Life began with love, and from time to time
    A forest sprouts out of thin air—oh time!   

2

A forest sprouts out of thin air.  Oh, time
Do not flee from me like a bolt, like a
Child who sees a gravesite for the first time,
I step deeper into the forest.  Where day
Becomes night and night is beautiful.  Awe
Like the first time I met God, and knew
It was safe.  I touched God there.  I there
Dismantled my gods, one by one they blew
Away.  I walked deeper still, thinking I
Would find more of God.  I found a yellow
Blossom that grew in a patch of blue sky
Like a daffodil.  It was dead, and I knew, oh
     I knew, that was all I could see of God,
     For no single one can run over Him rough shod. 

3

For no single one can run over Him rough shod,
The old forest said—moss as eyebrows, trees
As teeth and birds as eyes, like this façade
Were its real face and I was its trainee. 
And we laughed like old friends facing dead
And gone sensations that they did not know
Were all that dead—that they did not want dead. 
The rain came then, like white sheets of shame. So
I walked farther into the night’s jungle. 
The water mixed itself with this sorrow
Of memory.  Flooded thoughts.  Vandals
To privacy—like bullets they bring woe. 
    And it was there that I felt fear, not of
    My loss of memory, but its sweet love.

4

My loss of memory!  But its sweet love
Gave me a moment of bliss.  Like the life
In grass, as it is passed by void of
All hope, for something younger, with strong life.
The deeper one goes in the forest the more
Death, life and fear become irrelevant,
Religious experience at its core,
Like a cathedral the forest climbs.  Ant
That I am, I drop to the knees that I
Know well.  And fighting panic I know by name,
I put my trust in God.  Ferns grow awry
There, covering everything in dark green shame.
   I saw a small branch growing from a large
   Gruesome tree, like it grew from the same urge.

5

Gruesome Tree!  Like it grew from the same urge
To sin as my own. Tree, cross of my Lord,
Let me carry your holy weight.  Yet purge
The sum of me.  Through the high trees roared
A million birds wings, each carried letters
From God saying—“I love you like My
Own Son.”  Like old uncles in brown sweaters
Who give hugs with their eyes and don’t ever lie.
All C.S. Lewis like.  A wolf black as
Night stares at me.  Its head cocked like a
Gun ready to shoot—orange flames for eyes. 
Love’s ugly sister incarnate. Three days
  Of growth you may have on me.  But my Lord
  Destroyed you—beast that none can afford. 
    
6

Destroyed you, beast that none can afford.
Yet I still run from you.  Like fear is God.
The darkness of the forest with hordes
Of large mist covered armies, this demagogue
Called its own.  I came to a stronghold
There, its windows lighted by all daylight.
A moat surrounded its outer wall, old
As heaven’s gates.  I fell on my knees—knight
Of a realm that is dead.  Still the gates opened.
And I was welcomed in to the warm room
A fire its sole source of light.  A chair in
The middle of the room.  A small bush broom
Sat before the chair.  And there I ate—hidden. 
     The castle was there, and not there, my gain—
     The winds feel like forgiveness, feel like rain

7

The winds feel like forgiveness, feel like rain
On drying lips.  Like the dead carcass of
A deer, we are wolfed, still no pain
Just fear, like death.  Howls meet our ears, wolves we
Know by name stalk the woods.  Framing fear for
More moments than we can count.  Art to see
In all nightmares.  Our fire whispers old lore,
Dead druid tales, we are beginning to see.
The ghosts are coming out.  Outlines are drawn
In the eastern atmosphere.  Is this salvation?
The wolves are retreating in to the lawn.
The winds are whistling in abdication. 
     It’s like a fight for life with out a knife--
     a night in the forest of death and life.

I hope you enjoyed it!

Why Christmas?

   As an intellectual, I’ve found myself questioning Christmas for the last couple of years.  Unlike most grinches, I do not believe that the value of Christmas is diminished by its commercialization.  My lack of interest in Christmas had its general roots in the importance of Christmas to the Christian faith.  Yes, I understand that without Christmas the Cross would be impossible.  But the same argument could be made about many other things.  We don’t celebrate every time Jesus got better from pneumonia or avoided getting run over by a mule.  Both of which would have made the Cross impossible. 

  I have changed my mind.  Christmas is very important, maybe as important conceptually as Easter.  My reason for this stems from the fact that I no longer believe that there is a “central miracle” in Christianity.  There are two, in fact.  The second “central miracle” is the incarnation of Christ into flesh.  There are three reasons that I think the incarnation is important.

1.  God showed he meant business

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”  John 1:14 (NIV)

  The literary beauty of the Bible is in its story. Even though the Bible was written over thousands of years, its authors maintained its central focus on the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ.  Peter and Paul LaLonde claim that the Old Testament has over 60 prophecies about Christ and over 300 references to his coming.  Most good novels don’t have that many references to the climax. 

  Indeed, the whole of the Old Testament simply does not make sense without Jesus.  Even Jews believe that the Old Testament hasn’t been completed yet—they claim, for the most part, that the Messiah is still to come.  They believe that there is a “the rest of the story” still to come. 

  It’s here that we find the “real” business of God.  C.S. Lewis said, “The (Christian) ‘doctrines’ are translations into our concepts and ideas of that which God has already expressed in language more adequate, namely the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection.”  Indeed, it is the translation of the Old Testament into the actual being of Christ.  For Christ was the “Word [that] became flesh”, that is the perfect translation of doctrine into flesh.  Which is the only way that humanity could understand the Word. 

 

2.  It’s a promise…a kept promise

“‘The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.”  Jeremiah 23:5 (NIV)

  One of my favorite songs that we sing every Christmas is “O come, O come Emmanuel.”  The song takes the perspective of the Jews during the Jewish exile and describes the anguish felt at that time by the Jewish people.  Analogous to the Gospel music sung by slaves in the South before the emancipation.

   The song’s theme is from Isaiah 7:14.

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” (NIV)

    This prophecy is a promise that Israel would have a king who brought them perpetual peace.  Indeed, much of the psychological beauty of the Immanuel was that Israel would have peace and prosperity.  One might argue that the modern Christian conception of the eternal afterlife is semi-analogous to the Israeli concept of the Savior King.  Indeed, the savior was a symbol of the fulfillment of God’s contract with Abraham. 

  The promise was fulfilled.  As Simeon the Righteous said,

“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
   you may now dismiss your servant in peace.
 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
  which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
   and the glory of your people Israel.” (NIV)

    The symbol thus became universal—it was no longer merely a promise to Jews; but now a promise to alleviate the pain and bring all of mankind back from its “bondage.” 

“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.” Hebrews 2:14-15 (NIV)

   The analogy holds at every level.  God’s promise was fulfilled in a king who brought “everlasting” peace (albeit in the afterlife) and which fulfilled the law so that all mankind might be saved.  The impact then for us is that we may know that God really will fulfill his promise to come back for us.  We have historical precedent!

3.  God became personable

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh…” Romans 8:3 (KJV)

  Advertising executive Leo Burnett said, "Make it simple.  Make it memorable.  Make it inviting to look at." In an inexplicable, sense God made himself memorable and personable by “marketing” his love to us.  Think about it.  Before Christ came to earth and fulfilled the law, few people worshiped the Abrahamic God.  They saw Him specifically as the powerful sovereign God who destroyed everything in the way of the Jews. 

  Then we have a story that few could dislike.  (And in many ways if you think about it the Christmas story is so much more marketable to average consumers then say the story of Elisha cursing his mockers [they were mauled by bears].)  We have kings from far away places, we have animals, we have a young innocent mother and finally an adorable newborn baby—in an Incarnation that would capture the memory of history.   

 

Conclusion…

   It’s really amazing—the incarnation.  It was like God got down on his hands and knees and looked us in our eyes for the first time.  If you want real love, look deeply into His eyes.   

(Part V) Religious Experience and Doctrine

   Over the last month we have taken a fairly in-depth look at religious experience from the perspective of philosophy and apologetics.  Today, we’ll focus on the theological implications of religious experience.  Should religious experience reinterpret doctrine at any level?  Should it change our lives?  And what does the Bible say about it?

  Obviously we wouldn’t have the Bible without religious experiences, because prophecy necessarily comes from religious experience and the Bible was written by prophets.  However, the question remains—“can modern-day people experience the same kind of religious experience as the Biblical writers did?”  The answer is pretty obviously no.  The Bible is absolutely clear on this subject: 

John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”  (NIV)

  Its pretty apparent that John is talking about the Holy Spirit will make clear what Jesus had already said.  W. Hall Harris claims, “…in light of the connection with ‘all the things’ Jesus said to them, it is more likely that the teaching function of the Holy Spirit is not intended to reveal exhaustive truth to the disciples, but rather the full significance of what Jesus did and said while he was with them.”

Hebrews 1:1-3 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.  The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”  (NIV)

   The point here is that God communicated His Word twice—first through their forefathers and prophets and secondly through His Son.  Adam Clarke says it best, “This Son, in the fullness of time, was manifested in the flesh that he might complete all vision and prophecy, supply all that was wanting to perfect the great scheme of revelation for the instruction of the world, and then die to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Jude 3  “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” (ASV)

  Here we see that the faith (or Word) was delivered once and for all to the saints (ourselves).   Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states, “No other faith or revelation is to supersede it. A strong argument for resisting heretical innovators.” 

1 Cor. 4:6 “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.” (emphasis added)

  This verse clearly states that what is written is more important than anything anyone says later.  Charles Hodge says, “That is, not to esteem minister above the scriptural standard. As Paul had been dealing with this subject, ‘nothing beyond what is written’ might seem naturally to refer to what he himself had just written. But as the phrase elsewhere always refers to the Old Testament, which were the ‘writings’ recognized as of divine authority, that is probably what he is referring to here.”

1 Corinthians 14:3 “…the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.”

  It’s clear that prophecy is for upbuilding and encouragement. 

These verses make clear that God’s Word is already written and that the role of prophecy in the church is for encouragement—not for doctrine.  Thus, we can see that religious experiences, i.e. the ones that are prophetic, are not meant for the creation of new meaning in Christianity.  However, these experiences can and should be uplifting.  

  In most cases, these experiences can change our minds, change our hearts and always remind of us of what is already written in the scriptures. 

  

Conclusion…

  We’ve entered the heart of modern Atheism, empiricism, and argued that we can know that a supernatural realm exists.  This in turn proves that naturalism is false.  This in turn proves that supernaturalism is correct.  Finally, we looked at what the Bible says about modern religious experiences. 

George Washington's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation

     Most Americans believe that Thanksgiving Day is a celebration of survival, multi-culturalism and turkey.  However, this is not how our founding president George Washington would have wanted us to celebrate the day.  His 1789 proclamation, which made Thanksgiving a holiday and was the first proclamation ever made by a US President, shows exactly what he thought the holiday should consist of.  This entreaty should give us supreme confidence in our right to publicly give thanks and pray; and it is my hope that this will encourage the faithful to always give thanks in public for the blessings God has bestowed on us.  The Thanksgiving Proclamation: 

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

I’ll leave you with a prayer from 17th century poet George Herbert,

Thou hast given so much to me,
Give one thing more, - a grateful heart;
Not thankful when it pleaseth me,
As if Thy blessings had spare days,
But such a heart whose pulse may be Thy praise.

(Part IV) Argument for God based on religious experience: The Argument

  As I am sure you have come to see over the last three posts, the job of proving God’s existence based on religious experience is no easy task.  We have taken a hard look at what religious experiences mean, whether they actually occur outside of the brain and whether there are explanations for the data. 
  In this post, we will take a step back and look at the larger picture.  We will focus on taking the raw data we have accumulated and, too much like pieces of a puzzle, we will assemble that puzzle. 
  Before we can assemble the final syllogism, which I hope will hammer home the importance of this argument against atheism, we must present a basic first argument. 

The first argument…

Note:  Each number (like 1)) refers to a premise of the argument.

1) There are two ways of explaining reality: naturalism or supernaturalism.

   For those of you who may be in the dark as to what naturalism is, I will provide a definition.  Naturalism, according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the belief that “nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."1 Thus, naturalism is the belief that all that exists is nature, and thus all that is true is nature.  There is no room for a supreme, infinite and omnipotent Christian God in nature because nature is a god in and of itself.  
    Philip E. Johnson, a Christian apologist, points to the unmistakable conclusion of naturalism, “Evolutionary naturalism takes the inherent limitations of science and turns them into a devastating philosophical weapon: because science is our only real way of knowing anything, what science cannot know cannot be real.” 
  Supernaturalism then is the belief that something exists above nature.  The supernatural is something that super(cedes) nature.  In other words, supernaturalism asserts that things exist outside of nature. 
  It should be pointed out that the supernatural does not only refer to God.  The supernatural is anything which exists outside of nature, so if ghosts did exist, then they would exist in the supernatural. 
  Stated logically, A can be explained by C or B. 

2) Naturalism can only be true if nature is the only thing that exists.

   We already stated this premise in the statement, “Naturalism is the belief that ‘nature is all there is’”. 
  Stated logically, C is true only if D is true.

3) Things exist outside of nature.

   This is what we tried to prove in the last three posts—that religious experiences occur outside of nature.  We did so by proving that they are real experiences people feel and that they happen outside of a person’s brain.  Thus, we have proven that there is no real difference between a sensory experience and a religious one. 
   If our line of thought was successful, which I believe that it was, then we have proved that something exists outside of nature.  Thus, this premise is upheld.
  It should be noted that one could make many different argument to support this premise.  One could argue that the underlying object of numbers is outside of nature, i.e. that numbers are not merely constructs of nature.  One could argue that miracles have occurred in nature, which proves that something exists outside of nature. One could argue that scientific laws cannot be explained by nature.  And any number of other arguments could be made. 
   Stated logically, D is not true.

4) Thus, naturalism is false.

This follows necessarily from the last two premises.  Because naturalism claims that nature is everything and premise two proves that nature is not everything.  Thus, naturalism is false. 
  Stated logically, D is not true, thus C is not true. 

5) Since naturalism is false, supernaturalism is true.

   This conclusion is more or less logically necessary following the law of non-contradiction.  In other words, both naturalism and supernaturalism cannot be true because they contradict.  Thus, since naturalism is not true, supernaturalism is true. 
  An objection might be made that I am committing the either/or fallacy.  That is because it assumes there are only two-options naturalism or supernaturalism. 
  My argument doesn’t commit this fallacy.  That’s because the fallacy assumes that there are other options.  There are no other options.  Either both exist or one exists—there are no other options.  (Of course the supernatural could exist alone, but that would also negate atheism.)
  Stated logically, A is not C, thus it is B. 

The final argument against atheism…

   The moment we have all been waiting for…the logical proof that atheism is false.  We have taken a long road to get here, most of it necessary, and I thank all of you have stuck with it to this point.  The argument is in a simple logical syllogism…

1) If naturalism is false, then atheism is false.

  There is no doubt that if my logic up to this point is any good, then some atheists may try to avert my argument by suggesting that they are not naturalists.  And we do find some forms of atheism in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jain and other religions, which suggest that no “creator god” exists. 
  There are several problems with this view.  First, most of these religions (with the exception of Jain) do not teach polemically that atheism is true.  And there are many who are not atheists in each of these groups. Also, none of these religions are prima facie atheistic.  Second, most of these religions do have some kind of esoteric “supernatural” beings.  Third, the use of the word “atheist” is different from the one I am talking about.  I’m specifically talking about the form of atheism that is unreligious.  Fourth, this is semantic and unrelated to the subject at hand. 
  Again, the atheist really has no choice here unless they wish to abandon the belief that the natural world is “enclosed” within itself.
  Stated logically, either A or B.

2) Naturalism is false.

  The point of the first argument was to prove this. 
   Stated logically, not A.

3) Thus, atheism is false.
 
  Following premise 1 this is necessary. 
  Stated logically, since not A thus B. 

We have completed the arguments!  Thank you for reading these posts, I hope that they have given you confidence that atheism is demonstrably false. 

Philosophically…

If this argument is true, it means that we are left with theism, polytheism, pantheism, etc. In other words, some kind of “supernatural” entity does exist.  We have just started down the path of proving that Christianity is the true religion.  However, this road is long and it takes a lot of work.  The reward is huge and like anything that is any good, sacrifice is necessary.  WE CANNOT GIVE UP NOW!

My next post will explore the practical theological value of religious experiences…



1. (“Naturalism", in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan, 1996 Supplement, 372–373)

(Part III) Argument for God based on religious experience: Objections against first argument considered

   In my last post I argued the veracity of religious experiences.  You may have some questions or objections to that argument.  In this post we will consider four objections to the argument.

1) Objection from science:

  Someone might argue that these religious experiences all have some common cause in the brain or that they are a delusion.  Indeed, science has proven that certain parts of the brain are especially active when a religious experience happens.  A recent experiment done by Dr. Michael Persinger on patients with temporal lobe epilepsy used concentrations of magnetism to see whether religious experiences could be stimulated.  The study proved that certain patients could feel a presence when stimulated.  Other research has proven that certain lobes in the brain are more active and others are less active when religious experiences occur.  It’s not exactly clear what this research means, but atheists have been quick to argue that it proves that religious experiences occur inside of the brain.

Temporal Lobe

   There are good reasons to reject claims of this sort by atheists.  First, the research has only proved that certain brain lobes are activated, or shut down, when religious experiences happen.  It’s just as likely that the lobes are the way we “sense” things in the “religious plain” in the same way we use our eyes to sense the natural world.  In other words, the lobes of our brains could be the way we see things in the spiritual realm.  In fact, this makes more sense considering that certain parts of our brains react differently when we see, smell and feel.  Indeed, we would expect to have some of the most interesting physical things occur to us while we are in the middle of a religious experience. 

    Secondly, there really is no reason to assume that the atheists are right.  As Richard Swinburne has pointed out it is a logical fallacy to say that religious experiences are false because they are too incredible to be true.  In other words, the atheist is suggesting that religious experiences do not happen because they do not happen.  This is as logical as saying that religious experiences happen because they happen.  Both arguments are logically fallacious.

   Thirdly, scientists simply do not know how to explain what they have found.  As BBC reports, “Prof Ramachandran denies that finding out how the brain reacts to religion negates the value of belief. He feels that brain circuitry like that Persinger and Newberg have identified, could amount to an antenna to make us receptive to god.”1

  The atheist may object saying that we simply haven’t had enough research to prove that the experiences occur wholly inside of the brain.  I’ll leave them with a quote from a leading expert in nuerology and religious experience Dr. Andrew Newberg, 

Dr. Andrew Newberg

“While I think we have provided the most comprehensive neurological model of meditation and prayer to date, I can't prove or disprove that when somebody connects with God, he or she has actually connected. My publisher originally wanted me to call this a "real" experience - which we have no way of proving. Eventually, we compromised with the term "neurologically real" and we are in fact seeing something that is real from that perspective.”2

 2) Objection from sanity:

   The claim that everyone who has a religious experience is delusional or crazy also needs to be addressed.  However, I think most who make this claim are themselves delusional.  One can easily claim that someone is delusional for believing that fairies or aliens exist; however, claiming someone is delusional about an actual experience is quite another thing.  While it is true that someone can believe that their religious experience is something different than it was, this does not mean that the event did not occur.  In other words, misunderstanding a vision doesn’t make it untrue.  Although “fish stories” grow as they are told, they almost always begin with an actual fish.  Also, it would be impossible to prove that 2 out of 3 people (from the Baylor poll) are crazy.  Another point to be considered is that by definition you cannot have the same religious experience over and over again. Temporal lobe epilepsy patients have the same recurring experiences.   Thus, we can see that religious experiences aren’t had by “crazy” people.

3) Objection from skepticism:

   The naturalist may object that it is impossible for religious experiences to occur on the basis of philosophy.  This objection is based in skepticism.  The naturalist will say that we should doubt all experiences.  The skeptic suggests that experiences don’t necessarily tell us what reality is.  Skeptics use dreams as an evidence of how our senses can be duped into thinking that what is not real (i.e. the dream) is real.  However, this, like all skepticism, turns on itself because we know that what happened in the dream didn’t happen in real life.  As humans we test our own experiences, trying to figure out which ones are real and which ones aren’t.  You could make the argument that we self-authenticate our own experiences.  

  Further, on a completely philosophical level, skepticism is self-defeating.  If you’re skeptical of everything than shouldn’t you be skeptical of your skepticism?  
Swinburne offers another refutation to the objection from skepticism.  He suggests that we should accept experiences to be true unless we have a reason to question them.

Richard Swinburne

  

Stated logically, if it seems to a subject that x is present, then probably x is present.  

For example, we don’t doubt the veracity of a claim that the food is bad at a restaurant unless we have a good reason to doubt it.  In plain English, you shouldn’t doubt something unless you have a reason to.

4) Objection from negative experience:

  Finally, the naturalist may object, saying that their lack of religious experience proves that the supernatural realm doesn’t exist.  This objection carries a lot of weight.   Why can’t everyone have a religious experience?  Naturalists might suggest the same argument that Swinburne uses in a negative way, “if it seems to a subject that x is not present, then probably x is not present.”3  However, the naturalist assumes that X must be present.  In other words, the atheist suggests that the religious plain must present itself to everyone.  However, that hasn’t been proven.  Maybe only some people can experience it some of the time.  Just because you don’t experience doesn’t make it false.  It’s like saying that since you didn’t see the squirrel running across the street, the squirrel didn’t exist.



    In the next post we will consider the actual argument for the existence of God.  Hold in there.
 
Info
1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml
2) http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=203
3) http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-argument-from-religious-experience/the-principle-of-credulity/
photos:
1) http://www.wiredtowinthemovie.com/images/hotspots/level04temporalLobe.jpg
2) http://www.nourfoundation.com/images/gallery/dr-andrew-newberg.jpg
3) http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/images/RichardSwinburne.jpg

(Part II) Argument for the Existence of God based on Religious Experience: Proof for Religious Experience

    In this the second post on the Argument for God based on Religious experience we will consider the case for religious experiences as objective proof for something outside of nature.  Essentially, this post will be an attempt to support the premises of the argument based on religious experiences. 

   Experiences make up the backbone of the way people see the world.  We have a bad experience at McDonald’s and don’t go back.  We feel rejected by someone and “defriend” them on Facebook.  Experiences are literally how we make sense of the world.  Senses play a pivotal role in understanding everything around us.  We assume things based on experience—like if you kick a ball, it will move or that someone cannot be in two places at the same time.  Logic, science and almost every kind of study is based on experiences. 

   So what happens when you throw a wrench in the system?  What happens when someone experiences something that our experiences, or beliefs, tell us shouldn’t happen?  Like a religious experience?  Naturalists tell us that religious experiences don’t happen, or if they do than they are a figment of our imagination.  They tell us all that exists is nature.  However, some people have had experiences that nature cannot explain. 
  I will be providing the hard facts about religious experiences and arguing that, based on their propensity, something does exist outside of nature.

Paul on the Damascus Road, 1

     Religious experiences are literally the backbone of modern religion.  It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Muslim, a Christian or a Hindu—you probably base your beliefs on some sort of religious experience.  For example, Paul’s experience on the Damascus road changed him from a persecutor of Christians to one of the most notable figures in the Christian faith.  Many religious experiences may not actually involve seeing Jesus or God, but they do convince us of our religious beliefs.  Indeed, religious experiences may be the most basic reason for faith. 




The numbers...

   To prove that religious experiences occur, I will use the argument from numerical superiority.  In other words, I will argue that a large number of people have experienced x, thus x is true.   In What Americans Really Believe, Rodney Stark presents a Baylor poll in which two out of three respondents reported having a religious experience, with 45% claiming to have more than one experience.  The respondents answered as follows:

     Polls like this one, and there are others (including ones from Pew and Gallup), prove that a decent portion of the population has had at least one religious experience.  It should be noted that not everyone who claims to have had a religious experience has had one.  However, the widespread nature of the claims leads to a certainty that some have been true. 

  There is an important distinction to be made here; the poll is not saying that 66% of people believe in religious experiences.  It is saying that 66% of people have had a religious experience.  It’s like saying that 66% of people believe tattoos are painful versus 66% of people who have experienced having a tattoo and claim that it is painful.

    Just think about this for a second.  We base our whole lives on experience.  The primacy of experience to science is so basic that without it science wouldn’t exist.  The naturalist tells us that since we don’t experience God, as we experience the natural world, it is irrational to believe that He exists.  Thus, experience becomes the test of truth.  But wait, if the majority of people have a religious experience, doesn’t that make religion true? 

The argument…

  My argument is that since such a large number of people have religious experiences, there exists some kind of  “religious plane”.   What I mean by “religious plane” is that the human is not experiencing something inside of nature.  If the experience were inside of nature then it would be understood by our physical senses.  In other words, just as there are sensory perceptions (like seeing, smelling, feeling, etc.) which allow us to experience the world, there also exists a spiritual plain that can be sensed in a coherent way.  It is vital to this argument that these religious experiences occur outside of the person.  Just as we see a chair outside of ourselves, the spiritual experience must be “seen” outside of our brain. 

  For proof that these religious experiences are actual events that occur outside of our minds, all one must do is to point out that religious experiences occur throughout human history regardless of culture, race or religion.  In particular religious experiences are not unique to Christianity or any one religion.  It might be a different case if only “Christian Methodists” or “Hindus” had religious experiences, but far from being a single belief system phenomena, religious experiences have touched people of all faiths and all levels of intellect.  Atheists have become theists, Christians have become Muslims, Muslims have become Christians, etc. 

In the next post we’ll consider several objections to the concept that religious experiences occur outside of nature.

Photo 1: http://nooutcasts.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/paul-damascus.jpg

(Part I) Argument for the Existence of God based on Religious Experience: An Introduction

  Blaise Pascal was one of the most important thinkers in the history of philosophy, mathematics and religious matters.  His famous “Wager” remains a favorite of Christian apologists.  But Pascal didn’t always believe this way; when he was eighteen years old he suffered an illness that would leave him in pain for the rest of his life.  Not a day went by where he didn’t suffer and, sadly, he took his pain out on those around him as well.

  After a near-death experience in October 1654, Pascal lay unconscious for almost a month.  On November 23, from 10:30 to 12:30 at night Pascal had a religious experience.  He described the experience as follows: 

       “From about half past ten at night till about half past
        twelve, Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of
        Jacob, not of the philosophers and the learned.
        Certitude, certitude; feeling, joy, peace. God of Jesus Christ.” (Pascal Pensees 363)

Pascal

   The experience would change his life.  In the next eight years Pascal would write the majority of his religious writings—changing Christianity forever. 

   I have also had what I suppose was a religious experience, though I feel that it is one of the most ineffable events of my life.  All that I know was that all of my senses were dulled, I felt lifted outside of my body and I could see myself lying in bed.  I was awake and I could feel a dim light around me.  I also knew that I wasn’t alone.  I literally felt like I was surrounded and lifted up.  I had one thought the whole time:  Jesus.  I know it sounds cliché to say that I felt a word, especially one like “Jesus”, but I don’t wish to tell anything but the absolute truth. 

  There is no doubt that many people might be skeptical of my experience.  They could claim that I was under hypnosis, for I was thinking about religion at the time, or that I had a delusion.  That is of no concern to me and I suppose this is also true for anyone who claims to have had a religious experience.

Argument stated…

  What I hope to do in the next couple of posts is establish an argument for the existence of God based on religious experience.  In other words, I hope to prove that a “spiritual realm” exists outside of nature, because people have had experiences outside of nature.  This is important because the Naturalism is the foundation of Atheism.  (Naturalism is the belief that there exists nothing outside of what is physical.)  By proving that supernaturalism is true, and thus that naturalism is false, I will have proved that God is necessary.  There will be four premises to the first argument:

1) There are two ways of explaining reality: naturalism or supernaturalism.
2) Naturalism can only be true if nature is the only thing that exists.
3) Things exist outside of nature.
4) Thus naturalism is false.
5) Since naturalism is false, supernaturalism is true.

Based on this I will argue that:

1) If naturalism is false then atheism is false.
2) Naturalism is false.
3) Thus, atheism is false.

If atheism is false, then one must believe that a God exists. 

   At this point, someone may ask, “why go to the trouble of providing such an in-depth argument for the existence of God?”  No one can ever prove that God exists; it is a decision every man and woman will have to make independently.  However it is of essential importance to give people a reason to believe that God exists.  If God doesn’t exist, then your faith is pointless.  Paul makes the same point with Christ, “…if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”  (1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV).  If God doesn’t exist, then the first words of the Bible are meaningless, “In the beginning God…”  You might say that it doesn’t matter whether it’s rational to believe in God or not.  It may not matter to someone who has experienced God in their own life, but to people who have not, it can be very important.  It’s also essential to the defense of the Christian faith as well as the study of theology. 

   In the next couple of posts, I hope to establish the fact that something exists outside of nature.  I’ll do this by providing proof that religious experiences occur outside of nature.  Essentially, if such things as religious experiences occur, and if they occur outside of the mind, then nature cannot be everything.   If I establish this premise in the next few posts I will have proven the hardest part of this argument for God’s existence.

Religious Experience:  Definitions

    I will start by defining religious experience.  Generally speaking, religious experience is considered something that the individual (or group) has which lasts for a short period of time, something in which the individual feels that they have learned something of value, and something that cannot be reproduced.  What this means in plain language is that religious experience is a one-time, unrepeatable event that the individual feels was valuable.  This is basically the definition put forward by William James.  However, I have taken out his second criteria—i.e. the inability of description.  The reason for this is that some individuals are better able to communicate than others. 

    At this point, it is important to make a distinction.  There is a difference between “experiences” and “beliefs”.  Experiences are actual events that we sense.  Beliefs are ideas, symbols, etc. that we believe in.  The two concepts can inform each other (for example, our beliefs do play a role in how we interpret experiences).  However, beliefs do not dictate experiences.  If Jesus Christ did walk out of the tomb, then it was an actual event that anyone who was there could have witnessed.  They may disagree over how it happened.  But the fact that Jesus walked out of a tomb would be agreed to by spectators regardless of whether they were atheists or theists. 


   I hope that you will be able to read all five of my posts.  Remember, they will always be available via the archive.  Please feel free to follow this blog or comment on any of my posts. 

Coming soon…Part II:  Argument for the Existence of God based on Religious Experience:


(Pascal's Pensées, translated by H.F. Stewart (New York: Modern Library, 1947), p.363.)
Photo source:  http://www.mathematik.ch/mathematiker/pascal.php

Desiderius Erasmus Roterdamus (1466/9-1536)

   Desiderius Erasmus Roterdamus is not a lately discovered dinosaur; he was a reformation era scholar.  Erasmus was arguably the greatest scholar of the sixteenth century.  His work in languages was instrumental in the first published Greek New Testament, which led to more accurate translations of the Bible in English and German.  Both as a linguist and as a scholar of theology, Erasmus represents one of the most important figures in reformation history. 

  Theologically, or should we say politically-religiously, Erasmus was a non-combatant in the reformation.  He represents one of the few figures of his day who refused to become embroiled in most of the doctrinal divide.  (He would later become involved in Free Will discussions).  All of his critiques were more or less aimed at actions, not the idea of a hierarchical Church or the Pope.  In the truest sense of the word, Erasmus was a reformer (unlike Luther) because he believed that the Catholic Church was worth saving.

    Initially Erasmus praised Luther, calling him “a mighty trumpet of gospel truth” and  said that “it is clear that many of the reforms for which Luther calls are urgently needed.”1 As a result, Luther praised Erasmus for his scholarship and asked him to join the Lutheran Party. After being rejected, Luther claimed that Erasmus was a coward.  Erasmus was called many names by both sides because of his position of neutrality.  He believed that to join either the Catholic or Reformation’s doctrinal debate would harm scholarly community.  He said, “I detest dissension because it goes both against the teachings of Christ and against a secret inclination of nature. I doubt that either side in the dispute can be suppressed without grave loss.”2

   Though Erasmus did not involve himself in most of the doctrinal debate, he did believe many of the tenets of the Catholic tradition, claiming that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that the apocrypha was a part of the Bible.  For these beliefs, Luther called him “the very mouth and organ of the devil.”3

   Erasmus’s work De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (Of free will: Discourses; or, Comparisons) was a response to Luther’s views on predestination.  Erasmus argued a middle ground between grace and free will.  This would lead to a rather interesting addition to the formation of Protestantism.  Luther’s response, De Servo Arbitrio (On the bondage of the Will) would become his most well-known writing. 

Application: 

  How do we use Erasmus' example to apply to our own lives?  In order to understand this we must begin with his book Enchiridion militis Christiani (Handbook of a Christian Knight) where he tells soldiers to live by the Christian faith and not the rites of religion.  He claims that we are all soldiers for God from baptism.  This idea is essential to our lives as Christians and, even more so, as intellectual Christians because we are like soldiers in a small army facing an enemy with many soldiers.  Essentially, we are entering the territory of Satan by engaging in Christian intellectual issues.

  We must also sometimes take Erasmus’ stance on issues facing the Church.  We cannot fight everything we disagree with; neutrality is sometimes necessary and advantageous to the Church.  But when certain issues face us, we must fight as Erasmus did in the case of free will.  It’s also better to respond to contention as Erasmus did.  “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39, NIV)


1.  Galli, Mark, andm, Olsen, Ted. 131 Christians Everyone Should Know. Nashville: Holman Reference, 2000, p. 344.  
2.  Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953, p. 661. 
3.  D. Martin Luther. Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Briefwechsel, vol. 7, Weimar: Böhlau, pp. 27-40.

New Series: Christian Intellectuals

I will begin a series that profiles Christian intellectuals throughout the Christian tradition.  I’ll provide a brief biography of their lives, ideas and works as well as an essential application to our own lives.  I hope that these profiles will provide you with a brief history of the Christian intellectual tradition as well as help you to learn more about some interesting “unknown” scholars.

What is theology?

     Theology is the study of God and religion.  Christian theology then is the study of the Christian God and the Christian religion.  I really like the way Alister McGrath further develops the definition of theology in "Christian Theology: An Introduction"; he does so by including four stages to the study of theology: sources, development, relationship and application.  Sources may include the Bible, natural revelation, the Church or the church fathers.  Development deals with the way in which theology develops, i.e. its evolutionary history into what it is today.   This is a lot like historical theology in its approach to new ideas.  Relationship is how Christian ideas relate with each other and their total coherence.  Finally, application is about theology’s pragmatic value to believers and theologians.  (McGrath, 2011)  McGrath’s definition gives a good foundation for studying God and religion because it gives us four places to begin our study.  (You can checkout part of his book in the links.)  We must start with the revelation, watch the idea develop, watch the relation of the idea to others and finally check its applicability.  I will attempt to use this structure in discussing theology.

  An important question related to the first things…

  “How do we study theology?  What tools should we bring to the table to further our understanding?”  Many wide and varied suggestions have been made.  Indeed, this is quite possibly one of the seminal questions facing modern theology.  Some have argued that we must look at theology in a completely scientific way.  Others have suggested that we must attack the questions with only logic.   Both of these approaches come down to a basic idea that theology must be some kind of scientific study of religion. 

I believe this approach has many problems – one of which is focus. 

      For example, while science may be able to study the way civilizations think about God, it doesn’t have anything to do with the metaphysical relationship people have with a spiritual world.  To think that science is a necessary prerequisite to studying theology is arbitrary, not only because it isn’t pragmatic, but also because it means that religion must somehow subjugate itself to science.  Which ultimately means that we are studying religion under a microscope (like studying an ancient text) and that we have closed our eyes to anything outside of our visual stimuli.  This, I think, most theologians would reject because religion isn’t like any other subject; it is tied to something deeper than the mere flesh and bones that make up our body, it is tied to our being.  Many theologians have sold their metaphorical souls for legitimization of theology in the eyes of others and by doing so they have put blinders over the study of theology.

    I believe that this approach is wrong; my suggestion is that we approach theology with an open heart and mind.  We must approach it not merely as scholars but as believers. What I mean is that we must use all available paths to understand more about God and religion.  In this way, I guess I’m like Søren Kierkegaard, we live in a society that wants to study religion with a microscope, but we cannot study spirituality with anything but an open heart.

McGrath, A.E. (2011). Christian theology: an introduction. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. 

Who is Wolfhart?

Who is Woflhart?

     Wolfhart is the first name of famous theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg.  I named the blog after his rather excellent first name, not because he was the greatest theologian, but because he was the the theologian with the greatest name.  This blog is not about Wolfhart, but it is about his passion that is theology. 

   The charger in the name of this blog has nothing to do with electronics, sports, etc.  A charger was a steed who bore knights during the middle ages.  So, even though some of you may have thought I had become an electronic device...I remain a mere human.  

Mission Statement

    It is my hope in this blog to discuss issues that face modern Christian thinkers and give them creative solutions both traditionally theological and non-traditional  in nature.  In other words, I want to burnish a dialogue on theology for religious thinkers as outer and inner pressures affect modern Christianity.  I will discuss what it means to be a Christian intellectual in a world that rejects Christ.