Many
modern thinkers reject religion as a primitive attempt by early man to make
sense of his world. Atheistic naturalism makes better sense for them. After
all, hasn't science exploded many of the myths that religious people once clung
to? Hasn’t science made our lives better in innumerable ways in the here and
now? Why cling to superstition when it’s no longer… necessary?
People
who raise this challenge don’t seem to realize the flaw in their reasoning. The
first is that this line of thinking rests on a false dichotomy. The available
options are not religion or science. Holding to a religious worldview does not
require abandoning a scientific approach to problem solving, and being science-minded
does not require that a person reject what cannot be “scientifically” proven.
There is a middle ground, in which a person realizes the limitations of science
– roughly put, it is simply a tool for the systematic acquisition of knowledge
– and the need to be able to ground “knowledge” in something other than our
individual minds. Which leads to the second problem: without being able to
ground reality in something outside of ourselves, we can’t ultimately have any
confidence that our thinking is valid.
When I make use of mathematical equations, or attempt to manipulate the
world around me by rearranging chemical structures, I have to first have
confidence that these things – and the ideas I am using to make sense of them –
are real and that “the rules” do not change. Science rests on the unproven
assumption that general rules of nature apply. If these rules are simply a
product of my individual imagination, they may be no more valid than a daydream
in which I can fly. If man’s brain evolved as a result of purposeless change
over time, and if there is indeed no God who grounds reality, then on what
basis can one conclude that anything he perceives about the world is actually
true? A “randomly” evolving mind could just as easily get things wrong, since
concepts such as “right” or “true” have no meaning unless they are grounded
somewhere outside the mind. In a
universe without God, we can have no confidence in our conclusions because they
don’t have to be true.
But,
the challenger may argue, even if the brain (and mind) were designed by God,
how does that help? Doesn't the theist simply assume that God wanted us to know the truth? How can we
have confidence that what we think does correspond with reality? In other
words, how do we know that God did not design our brains to “pull the
proverbial wool over our eyes”? Doesn't the theist simply assume this, just as
the atheist assumes that evolution also provides a means for “true” knowledge?
Yes,
I suppose it is possible that God is deceiving us. It’s possible, but not
reasonable, once one unpacks what deception entails. Why do people deceive one
another? Why does the thief seek to gain the trust of his victim? Why does the
straying spouse carefully cover his tracks? Why does the cheating student
adamantly deny that his work is not his own? Whatever its ultimate purpose or
manner of execution, all acts of deception have something in common: they are
perpetrated by intelligent, but limited, beings who wish to obtain something
that they otherwise cannot have: money or power, the “other woman,” top grades.
But this can make no sense when applied to God. After all, he is an omnipotent
being that created us from nothing. We
possess nothing that he did not himself create. He can think us into or out of
existence without effort. In short, he has no needs of any kind, and certainly
none that would require deception in order to fulfill.
But
he created us for a purpose, and that purpose – our ultimate destiny – involves
relationship. He made
us personal beings because he too is personal, and he wants us to eventually
find relationship with him. That’s why relationship is so important to all
of us. We were built that way for a reason.
But relationships built on dishonesty and deception ultimately fail.
“Love” that is built on lies does not flourish, because it cannot.
As a limitless being, God gains
nothing from deceiving us. He is the source of all, and we have nothing that he
wants – other than our free will freely
directed toward, and not away, from him. He wants to allow us to share in
the love that exists within him. To accomplish this end, he gave us both
intelligence and free will. We use these gifts everyday in forming and
maintaining relationships with others. Eventually, the day will come for each
of us to decide how we will choose to respond to the one who created us. But
for this choice to have any meaning, our intelligence and free will must be
operating accurately.
This line of thinking leads me to conclude that a being
possessing that much power – power
without limitation - would not create minds for the simple purpose of
deceiving them into thinking that what they perceive around them is actually
the opposite of what it really is. Consequently, I have no
reason to suspect that God is deceiving me. This is more than a mere assumption
– it is a conclusion stemming from a logical argument: deception is only
employed as a means to acquire a desired object or end; an infinite being has
no need to acquire anything; therefore, an infinite being does not use
deception.
That’s why we can have confidence that the
mind, if created by God, can be
reliable. If there is no God, by contrast, there is no basis to believe that
anything is actually “true.” So the
theist’s view of reality is coherent while the atheist’s is not. This, of course,
does not make any particular believer’s religious views “correct.” Our minds
may be led astray for many reasons, and we may simply get it wrong, or fail to
fully understand what God has in mind.
But
we should make the effort; we should endeavor to use our minds to reach out –
and up – to God, because relationships always start with that first step of
inquiry, of getting to know the other. A personal
God is waiting for us to take it.
6 comments:
How does your view understand 1 Kings 22:22,23?
Fred,
I don't take that passage literally, as it portrays the "court" of God as divided and in need of advice, and God as indecisive. Furthermore, the prophets in question were already being dishonest - telling the king what he wanted to hear - and needed no encouragement. My view is that it is teling the account of what occurred using symbolic or poetic language.
Declaring the passage as being "symbolism" without any warrant is a convenient dodge. Are you seriously suggesting there isn't a spiritual realm where such things could very well take place? We don't wrestle w/ flesh and blood but with spiritual principalities in high places.
But laying that aside, even if this is a "symbolic" story, you still have the prophet saying that it was God who initiated the lying spirit to be placed in the mouths of those false prophets for the very purpose of deceiving the hearers.
In the same manner, God specifically left Hushai in Jerusalem during Absalom's rebellion for the very purpose of defeating and bringing disaster upon Absalom (2 Sam. 17:14).
Now I will be no means say God uttered falsehoods, or that he "deceives" in the same manner one sinner deceives another sinner in order to get a selfish advantage, but God did intend to "deceive" for the purpose of bringing judgment. Such events happen several times in the OT and they ain't just "symbolic."
Fred,
I think I gave the warrant...God neither needs advice nor is indecisive. This is a manner of writing aimed at the audience it is intended for. Furthermore, there are other passages, such as Hebrews 6:18 (it is impossible for God to lie), wihich make the case explicitly. Taking the Bible as a whole, I can't conclude that God never lies but also lies whenever it suits him. Had the passage in Kings been written in the style of Hebrews 6 - eg. had it said plainly that God practices deception - then I would have a contradiction to deal with. As it is, the passages can be harmonized, even though on its face the Kings passage can be disturbing.
By the way, my general point was that in a Christian worldview, the mind can be viewed as reliable, since its Creator intended it to be so. Do you disagree with this assertion?
I'll leave my contention with your thesis alone for now. It's not my intention to be trollish. I agree with your premise that God is an unlying God as it literally says in Titus 1:2.
However, the King's passage is a direct revelation from God through the prophet Micahah that is a "thus saith the Lord" so it cannot just be waved off as being "symbolic." God intentionally allowed a lying spirit to deceive the prophets so that they will deceive Ahab and bring judgment upon him, his house, and the nation that had followed him into apostasy.
Though I believe it is easily harmonized as you point out; as you note, it is a passage I believe you need to be prepared to address. Better to have me, someone who is friendly to your cause here, point this out than a smart thinking atheist or other biblio-skeptic.
You write,
By the way, my general point was that in a Christian worldview, the mind can be viewed as reliable, since its Creator intended it to be so. Do you disagree with this assertion?
Though this assertion may be generally true because all men are created in the image of God, it fails to take into consideration what Scripture does reveal regarding the impact of sin upon man's mind. Romans 1:18 ff. insists men will suppress the truth in unrighteousness and Ephesians 4:17ff declares sinners have darkened minds that are futile, blinded, and ignorant. These passages describe the noetic effects of the fall. How does that shape your understanding of man's so-called "reliable" mind?
Typically, the classic-evidentialist apologists I have encountered from your orbit of on-line apologists, down play this biblical teaching of sin's noetic effects and believe evidence presented in a winsome, rational fashion, can some how be used to convince sinners of the truth of the Christian worldview. I don't see the Bible in any fashion supporting such an idea at all. I interact with this more here if you are interested,
http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/csi-apologetics/
Fred,
There is a certain irony in your question. After all, if we both didn't think that the mind is "reliable" in discerning truth, we wouldn't be having this discussion about what effects sin had on our ability to know things. Indeed, why did God provide Scripture, and admonitions in Scripture, if our fallen minds were incapable of making sense of any of it?
For myself, I reconcile these apparently conflicting concepts by distinguishing the mind, in general, from the mind of a particular person. The latter can be heavily corrupted, especially by sin. The former, while limited and tainted by the effects of sin, remains reliable, such that it is fair for God to tell us that we are suppressing the truth and that his law is written on our hearts. We need not be perfect thinkers, or omniscient, to make use of this tool we have been given.
I checked out your website. I think you raise some interesting issues. I agree that we can't reason someone into the kingdom - at least not without God doing the work. But if I take your position to its logical conclusion, I'm not sure what the point would be of discussing theology at all. Why bother with the great commission if the noetic effect of sin is as extreme as you conclude?
Best,
Al
Post a Comment