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