Lately the science vs God debate has been getting lots of coverage in the media again, this time because of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Most coverage still assumes that belief in a God who created the world and belief in science- in this case evolution- are mutually exclusive. I beg to differ on this point.
I use belief here in the sense of "something you base your thinking on." One thing I notice when talking to my friends is that the reasons many of them give (or imply) for not believing is that they cannot see the evidence for God on which to base a belief. I think this attitude comes from the scientific mindset, where a theory (in this case that there is a God) is tested in controlled conditions and the results evaluated to see whether or not they constitute proof that the theory is likely to be true.
The problem with this way of thinking is that, as I've said before, you cannot prove the existence of God with scientific or logical evidence. This seems to be the problem that so many people come up against (including, it appears, David Attenborough). There's also a problem that as a historian I know only too well- what counts as 'evidence?' How do you know that your evidence is reliable? Evidence is a tricky thing- something we consider proven today may be overturned completely in the future because of the discovery of a new piece of evidence.
The thing is, of all the people I know who have faith, I don't think any would say they believe because of evidence. I don't mean they discount evidence- only that they recognise that the evidence is not, in itself, enough. Evidence from within our experience, from within our world, cannot prove or disprove the existence of something which is totally outside our frame of reference. It can act as a signpost, but a signpost doesn't prove the existence of the town to which it points the way. People who want clear, incontrovertible evidence for the existence of God are looking in the wrong place.
What this doesn't address, of course, is the question of how, then, people come to a belief in God. Something is required to convince, to demonstrate who God is. The answer is different for everyone, but involves God working in and with us to demonstrate this truth, to give us the faith we need to respond to God. More on this another time, perhaps.
I also find it interesting what the writer of this piece says about how faith has transformed communities in Africa- not just the infrastructure built by 'missionaries' but also the changed lives and attitudes. It's refreshing to see that to even a confirmed sceptic the change that faith makes in people's lives is evident, and wonderful to hear it applauded by somebody who you would naturally expect to be suspicious. It's a shame that the difference isn't as evident in Britain today- or at least, if it is, no one's shouting about it.
Okay then, I'll bite.
ReplyDeleteI believe because of evidence. My proper conversion to Christianty came when somebody explained to me, in simple terms, the structure of the faith, that linked all the evidence together. At the same time, it allowed me to stop concentrating on the holes, and start concentrating on what I *could* believe.
Many times since then, I'd have chucked in my faith if it weren't for evidence. Although evidence can include our own personal experience, I find that's all to easy to put down to my own delusion. During the hard times, I thought about dumping Christianity, but realised that I could still, inescapably convince myself to say the creeds. For a long time, I liked my phrase that "I'm a Christian, whether I like it or not".
I think that there is genuine evidence for Christianity, enough to convince anyone who investigates thoroughly and impartially. The problem is that our reason, like the rest of us, is depraved and unable to see the truth unless God, in his graciousness, lifts us up to see clearly. Still, we're called to "Always be ready to make your defence to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you" and I believe that if we set the evidential basis of Christianity up as an impossible question, we're ducking out of this duty and jettisoning a valuable weapon in our armoury.
I think you're misunderstanding what I meant to say. I'm not denying there is evidence, or that it plays an important role in helping us understand, just that on its own it's not enough. Neither is just experience, of course. Either can be denied by someone who's determined enough, or can seem incomprehensible or full of holes. As you say, it's only when God breaks into our world and, as with the conversion of Saul/Paul, removes the scales from our eyes to let us see him that things make sense. That was the point I was trying to make.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit like looking for something in a dark room: we can find out a certain amount about what's there by feeling and hearing but until the light is switched on we can't see what is there.
To the contrary, I believe that on its own, the evidence is enough. You mention people's presupposed starting points, but the fact is that not all presuppositions are equal and if you start from a point that doesn't let you reason towards the truth, that presupposition was bad and instead of reasoning from it, you should have turned round, attacked it and looked for something more basic underneath (but there's the scientiest in me talking).
ReplyDeleteThe Holocaust can be denied by someone who's determined enough. However, that doesn't make their denial reasonable. The problem there is with the denier, not with the evidence. Similarly, I think that the dark room analogy is flawed, since the problem is not that the room is dark so that the poor innocent people can't see (unless God helps them by turning on the light). The problem is that the people have put on blindfolds. The truth of the matter may be perfectly clear to an objective observer, but they (we) have wilfuly blinded ourselves to truth. We can't claim innocence by saying the evidence wasn't clear enough, as we were the ones culpable of demanding an unreasonable and ever-changing standard of 'proof' - like the citizens of Hell in Lewis' 'The Great Divorce' who take a bus ride to Heaven, convince themselves through numerous reasonings that what they see shouldn't be taken at face value, and get back on the bus again. Did they have enough evidence? Yes, but they weren't prepared to submit themselves to reality.
I think Christians sell themselves short when they reduce Christianity from the only totally logical system of the world, and at the same time from a man raised from the dead 2000 years ago, to an unprovable, subjective mind-game. To my ears, those are the words of people who are not convinced by their own thoughts, and are making insurances for a fall. Christians turn the faith from something that objectively works, into something that works for you, but not me. If Christianity is true, we need to convince people to work at setting aside their a priori agendas and seek what they can find.