That being said, my post today kicks off an attempt to tackle a serious topic. It is a very broad topic in scope, very complicated, and should take many posts to flesh out. I will not do them all in sequence (I have many current issues I want to discuss). These posts will also not be my best work. What is this complex topic? Arguments for the existence of God - something people often believe easily settled, but is often more complicated than given credit.
The fight over proving God's existence tends to take 1 of 2 general directions: either it focuses on actual evidence or philosophical proof. There are over 2 dozen philosophical proofs - more than I care to look at during Christmas. So for now I will focus on physical evidence. After all, there is much hype over Hadron colliders and Kepler exoplanets these days. Physical evidence also happens to be the most easily abused path of proof, as people rarely consider things like epistemology (how do we know what we know?) or pre-suppositions (what do I assume to be true before I even interpret evidence?).
On the side of evidence, empiricism states we should only believe what we can observe with our natural senses. In it's more extreme form, it is said that because we cannot observe God himself in a measurable way, we should not hold belief in him. Or, if we do, we do so merely on "faith" (wishful thinking) and not reality. It is a popular philosophy, and one that under-girds much of mainstream scientific opinion. But despite its presence in this modern arena, this type of thinking is not new. It actually predates the modern scientific era by a few thousand years, being championed as early as 3rd century BC by thinkers like Epicurus.
Giving this concept serious consideration is difficult, as numerous challenges can be offered. Should we expect God, part of an unseen spiritual realm, to be measurable by visible, physical standards? Because one does not have the proper tools to “measure” God’s existence, should it be ruled out? If I were born a century before Galileo, but was convinced of heliocentrism - should I have abandoned that belief because I did not have the tools to prove it? These are all just the most obvious of questions that should be considered. They are by no means complete, but fairly self-evident and yet rarely addressed by scientists and skeptics.
Of course, the challenge from skeptics is not itself shallow. While believers do not hold to empiricism, they still claim 'proofs' for God based on similarly subjective or questionable criteria. For instance, people may argue God based on the effectiveness of prayer, a personal experience they've had, or some child’s out-of-body experience. Believers try very hard to point to people and say “God exists!”. But each of these things, no matter how well intentioned, are little better than the infamous Pascal's wager. They leave one to be convinced by little more than chance (Pascal), isolated incidents (personal experience), things that cannot be measured (effectiveness of prayer) or visions of the afterlife that are ethnocentric (the product of a particular ethnic or cultural influence). Sometimes, the experiences themselves even have natural or psychological explanations.
So, I believe skeptics have a right to reject such proofs. Christians should be careful to use them, too. The Israelites were told how to test for people falsely speaking for God (Deut. 18:20). The punishment was the most severe possible. Are we prepared to subject our own beliefs, experiences and comments to the same scrutiny? Are we so impervious to personal deception simply because we claim belief in God? These are useful proofs, but are best used to peak curiosity in people uncertain about their beliefs, that may not be asking for intellectual evidence .
In the end, both sides of evidence-based arguments are not as helpful as they would seem. They seem to be simple and surefire ways to point to God’s existence (or lack thereof), but are ultimately based in personal opinion or experience. In some sense, one has to "stack the deck" to make these arguments work all on their own. Skeptics operating on empiricism are saying "you can prove a supernatural being exists, but don't use supernatural proofs". Christians trying to argue their own experience are often implying "I don't care about your proofs!" This is a hard pill for anyone to swallow who is seriously considering all possible explanations for something. Neither side will ever win on this type of tactic alone.
Skeptics should be vocal about their prior commitment to excluding supernatural proof, much as people prefer to know when drug companies fund studies showing the benefits of their latest drug. Similarly, Christians are committed to proving God's existence by all means. This is confirmation bias - a dirty word with many "objective" people. It may be viable, but it alone is not sufficient -these types of proofs are rarely ones to rely on alone. We should supplement them with other arguments, and not insist on them convincing our enemies.
It would be better if we could find some evidence all people agree on and work from there. (SARCASM ALERT) In that regard, perhaps this year has finally brought the world such evidence. And in an surprising source - Tim Tebow. No sports star in history has proven so difficult for sports commentators to understand or accept. Why? And what does this have to do with proving God's existence? I believe the answer to the second question will be obvious if I carefully frame my answer to the first.
Part of the controversy over Tebow comes from his public acknowledgment of his Christian faith (a topic I hope to explore more), and the natural opposition that follows. But aside from that, Tebow's performance for Denver this year has been the greatest source of confusion for sports writers. They have all tried to explain it away, but have utterly failed - some beginning to get on the bandwagon. Let me elaborate:
Tebow was a Heisman-winning quarterback (the first as a sophomore!) who set SEC records for the dual-threat of his pass efficiency and running prowess. An obvious candidate for superstardom, he was drafted to the NFL by the Denver Broncos. However, he struggled to convince coaches of his ability to start. His first year, he did not even start until late in the season – when the Broncos record was of no consequence. Summer camp came and went, and Tebow seemed destined to be another victim of professional competition - remaining out of the starting position for yet another year.
That was, until 5 weeks of play proved Denver’s starter, Orton, just as poor a performer. With hope for little else, Tebow got his chance. He grabbed a few lucky touchdowns, but the game was still lost by a very shaky performance. It seemed he was as bad as people feared, if you believed sports writers. His next game, he started and his performance continued to lag. All but 3 minutes ticked off the game clock, and Denver was scoreless. Coaches had to be wondering if they made the right decision. Then, it happened - Tebow began a miraculous (and historic) comeback – grabbing 18 points in a way that would have made John Elway blush.
Unfortunately, game after game, week after week, one performance after another, Tebow continued to struggle. He seemed to be giving opponents hope of scaring him back to the sidelines. He lost his next game to Detroit. But as time went a pattern emerged - while he struggled in his games, he somehow made comebacks to win. Over time, the Broncos racked up 6 straight wins this way!
So, the fact that Tebow is a source of confusion for people is obvious. While his statistics are not terrible, they do not scream “good”, and would look terrible without the comeback performances. For instance, from the Wikipedia page:
And here's my point: anyone who leads a team through such an amazing winning streak with average stats and questionable performance, I believe, is undeniable evidence for God’s presence. Skeptics chalk the wins up to skill, but these stats do not agree. If his wins were also chance, Tebow would not have beaten a team like Minnesota. Te fact that New England broke the winning streak is not a disproof of my theory, either. Rather, it remains a subtle reminder of an NFL truism - anyone who takes on the Patriots needs more than God on their side.
For further thoughts on proving God, other problems with the issue and if we should even rely on it, see Glen Miller's thoughts at the Christian Think-Tank here (his response to question #1) and here.
No comments:
Post a Comment