Against the necessity of proving that God exists

 

          When you go to a Dinosaur Museum no one spends much time trying to prove to you that they were alive millions of years ago.  The learning process there is based on that premise. The same happens when it comes to Astronomy. Nobody in the area is heavily occupied with proving that the Universe is 13 billion years-old and counting. The work is done taking this for granted. Similarly, when people attend a football or soccer game, hardly anyone has as their primary goal to convince fans that this is an emotionally incredible, satisfying experience. The whole event is built upon that assumption. Also, in those contexts people usually can’t hide evident conflicting information or bad facts and results to make the teaching/institution look good all the time. Even these are believed to add to the overall reliability and profit of the experience.

            The same was held as valid for the existence of God in many historical circumstances. The Reformation Period is and an example, but even if you go to Aquinas and his proofs of God’s existence, they were delivered in a context in which His existence was a given. Therefore, people were not spending too much time proving that God exists but using their time in discussions and controversies to describe Him and the ways in which He acts. Historical developments however have pushed society away from that presupposition and now Christians find themselves spending lots of time in providing evidence of the existence of God. It can be in the science and religion setting, it can be in talks with atheists or materialists, or it can sometimes even be inside religious circles. The current situation, started especially by the Enlightenment, brought us to what could be described as a Post-Christendom era, in which the continuity in concepts, convictions, and values between the Church and the wider society is not prevalent anymore.[1] It can also be named “normal nihilism”, as does Okamoto.[2] In normal nihilism, the highest values devalue themselves, and the very necessity of presenting proof of our basic positions is a testament to that reality. In the last few decades, or even centuries, engaging in the debate of God’s existence has become a place where Christians may spend a good share of their time.

            However, it may be time to rethink this trend. Perhaps it is time to stop spending too much of our time proving that God exists, and to use it in witnessing, teaching, and proclaiming who He is.

The reflection upon this topic has somewhat influenced my ministry. In the past, I have been actively engaged in that discussion. Especially during the 13 years I served as Campus Pastor, I’ve spent a fair amount of time and words engaging in the conversation about the existence of God. The natural proofs, the existential proofs, and the logical speculations. I wouldn’t say that this is completely useless. It finds its place particularly in the dialog with people whose food for thought is exactly engaging in intellectual interactions, and it might be a good conversation starting point. However, since that is not the case for many other people, that reflection led me to consider ways in which engaging in proving the existence of God can be not only exhausting, but fruitless as well.

The first reason is that it makes it look like you need to find rational ways to elaborate arguments to talk to people, but only to get to the same dead end - it is a question of faith. You will deal with rabbit holes from which is virtually impossible to find a way back. Take, for instance, five common-sense topics of objection. I went on ChatGPT and typed, “Christianity is wrong and false. Write an essay about it.” Under the title, “A Critical Examination of Christianity: Evaluating Its Claims and Implications”, the essay brought 5 of the most common-sense points on the topic: 1) Historical Context and Inconsistencies; 2) Rationality and Scientific Understanding:  3) Ethical Dilemmas and Moral Concerns: 4) Cultural and Historical Relativism: 5) The Problem of Evil. [3] Now, even the best crafted arguments trying to make God look viable in the light of the spirit of the time in these and many other objections may be entertaining for a conversation’s sake, but they will fall short from the expectation. The human mind will come out as the overall winner because you are in the rational field trying to make a point about a super-rational belief.

From there we get into the second, and deeper problem. Say you manage to have the other person coming to the same ground where you are, as a concession. “Okay, I’ll give you that the Bible is the source to know God. Now tell me who He is.” What comes then is an even more daunting task: when you reveal who the God of the Bible is, and in which ways He stands against reason and many of the human moral standards, you might get in an even harder spot than before. For when the atheist or skeptic didn’t consider the Bible as source, when he didn’t know who God is, he might still be presuming His goodness according to his standards. Now he needs to conform his standards to the Biblical ones. And the ways in which God is described and act in the Bible can sometimes be a pill harder to swallow than to simply accept His existence.

Take Exodus 3 for example, where God defines himself: Yahweh – “I am who I am”. This can be framed as a circular argument, coming from nowhere and going anywhere for the rational mindset. Let’s try another one: Jesus speaking right before the “come to me all you heavy laden” beloved passage: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. “(Matthew 11). This seems rather offensive to a culture of choice, diversity, and inclusiveness. Now, at this point one could argue that we should pick “God is Love” (1 John 4), “God is Good and His love endures forever” (Psalm 136), John 3:16 and other passages as easier, or at least not too bad descriptions of Him, which could be easily understood, even taken in, by our contemporary minds. It is when you unpack them on Biblical grounds though that you get the problem. Making the Gospel more palatable to the World is usually done by calling good evil, and evil good.

            Here I am making a connection to Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation of 1518. Luther was talking about the distinction between Theologians of Glory and Theologians of the Cross. The cross here doesn’t mean only Jesus’ cross, but everything that is implied in the Christian life. He states: “A Theologian of Glory calls good evil, and evil good. A Theologian of the Cross calls things the way they are.”[4] How does that connect to my theme? Theologians of glory spend lots of time trying to make God lovable. For that purpose, they must make God look good, and making people suffer doesn’t sound like good and lovable.[5] When the human mind grants the Bible the authority to talk about God, it usually would take the approach of the human “lovable”, “God is good” perspective. When it realizes who the God of the Bible really is, the shock may be greater than when it first struggled with God’s existence. That is because our natural mind tends toward not cross and suffering, but to happiness and goodness – and those are defined according to the standards of the current generation. Since human standards of goodness and happiness are in constant change, not always matching God’s, the problem of acknowledging such God is established.

What we need here, then, is more of the second step and less of the first. God’s existence and God’s attributes clash with human notions in many ways. We could skip the first step – proving that God exists – and using more of our time describing who He is. From a mere human point of view the effort and the problem would be the same, you are talking with a rational mind who is struggling with the leap into the darkness, to paraphrase Kierkegaard. However, in the first step, you have hardly used any Scripture, for they are not a common base of discussion. You are dwelling in external arguments. Now when you turn to the second step, you are still in a difficult soil, running against the grain of human mind’s pride. However here you will resort to the Bible, the only source you as a Christian know to do so, witnessing Jesus as He is and letting the Holy Spirit do His task. By describing God in Biblical standards, you are using the only means that can drive home the good news of the Gospel. You decline trying to be the hand, and you are content in being just the tool.

At this point, one may wonder if this essay is advocating that the right way to present God before the World is always in a bad light to make it slam against reason? No, that is not the point. The point is to witness and teach the God as He is presented in the Bible. We have the Creeds, the Catechism; we have our Confessions, and our Dogmatics; and we have the books of our Theologians. They are usually clear about the essence of the Christian (and Lutheran) faith. We do have dozens of ways to present God’s love, goodness, faithfulness, and forgiveness that sound pleasantly joyful, comforting and peace-bringing to many. The problem begins when we start to soften up or water down what they teach, in fears that God won’t sound good as we wish He would to our neighbor’s ears.  However, we don’t want to call good things bad, and bad things good; we want to call things what they are.

Another question here could be: what about rational ways to approach the Bible and to talk about God, are they completely excluded? Could we use human standards to at least start a conversation? I believe so. One of the ways is being sensitive to audiences, cultures, and levels of knowledge when choosing vocabulary and building up arguments. One doesn’t use the same style of speech or even the same words in a wedding as in a funeral, in a celebration as in a loss, in marriage counselling as in youth camps. Even the most difficult passages of the Bible and the Confessions are written in a context, so will our teaching be. One example of this could be when a word triggers people in the opposite direction of the intended meaning, spoiling the attention given to the rest of the message/teaching. The Bible we most use is a translation, and in the field of translation there can be more than one word to refer to the same Greek or Hebrew vocable. Choosing words and phrasal constructions is not a problem; choosing the meaning according to the spirit of the time will be.

Another way is the use of analogies, comparisons, and illustrations. Since Jesus himself used parables to both shock the human mind[6] and to teach the Word of the Kingdom to many, the same holds true for the way in which we present the Gospel. We can illustrate with daily life situations, make analogies, and connect ends. But our goal is less proving that there is a God and more witnessing who He is, as revealed in Jesus Christ, our Lord. We still may have the human mind shocked by terrible news of sin and death, but we will have the human heart being comforted as faith is awakened by the action of the Holy Spirit.

Here's one illustration to address, for example, point 5 of the ChatGPT common-sense essay, the problem of suffering, or the problem of evil. Imagine a father that sends his son to school. He is doing that because he intends good for the boy, even when the kid would prefer something else. Now during school time, he falls and breaks his arm. Ambulance, hospital, recovery. “Why do bad things happen to good people”? Because of sin (Psalm 51:5, Hos 13:9), which makes us all bad people. Did the father not care about the boy, did he intend that he would be harmed? Of course, not (Matthew 7:7-14). It still happens, and in a sense the Father allowed it to happen – but in the context of a Father who works everything for the good of his children in a world under sin (Romans 8:28). Now, every illustration breaks at some point, but this one helps us to focus on God’s revealed way of acting in the world rather than in His not revealed motives – or even to delve in an argument if the Father even exists.

This reminds us Christians that we are the ones who need first, and constantly, to acknowledge God as He is. Even when what He is does not fit what we think He should be, when it makes us look strange before family and friends and makes us look naïve or even evil before the World. God’s goodness is defined by the Bible as goodness in Christ, and just this one exclusive clause – only through Christ – is already flavorless to a rational world. I believe that the Church can use less time trying to prove to the World that God exists - an effort that may cause the opposite of what we think – and go into the World or invite the World into the Church in person/via Web to give them the experience of what belonging to Jesus presents. The Church takes for granted His existence and His Word – her highest values - and shares them with the World. She witnesses the victory obtained by Jesus, the losses we have in life, the thousands-of-years story of the people of God and the 24/7 protection, love, and goodness for us.

It will save the Church time spent in arguing with people that the Earth is so perfect and clock-working that it could only have been created by a master mind; in finding gaps in origins of the universe theories; or defending that nothing exists by chance, so there must be a God. It will lead her to use time to teach and witness God as expressed in the Bible. As we shorten the time spent trying to prove if there’s a God, we will find renewed joy in spending time sharing who He is.

 

Rev. Lucas Andre Albrecht

 

Photo by Davide Cantelli on Unsplash

---

[1] Hauerwas, Stanley, and William H. Willimon. Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.

[2] Okamoto, Joel P. “When Salt Loses Its Saltiness: Nihilism and the Contemporary Church.” Concordia Journal 44 (2018): 33–49.

 

[3] The full text brought up these arguments:

1.      Historical Context and Inconsistencies: Critics of Christianity often point out historical inconsistencies and contradictions within its teachings. They argue that the Bible, the central religious text, was written by fallible human beings and has undergone translations, interpretations, and revisions over time. Skeptics contend that these factors have led to inconsistencies and discrepancies, undermining the claim of divine authorship and infallibility.

2.      Rationality and Scientific Understanding: Christianity, like many religious traditions, requires faith in supernatural claims that often defy empirical evidence and scientific reasoning. Critics argue that blind faith can lead to a disregard for critical thinking and logical analysis. They maintain that a reliance on faith alone may hinder the advancement of knowledge and hinder the pursuit of evidence-based explanations for the natural world.

3.      Ethical Dilemmas and Moral Concerns: Some critics raise ethical concerns regarding certain teachings and practices within Christianity. They argue that the promotion of concepts such as original sin, eternal punishment, and divine judgment can lead to feelings of guilt, fear, and psychological distress. Critics also highlight historical instances of religiously motivated violence and discrimination that have resulted from dogmatic adherence to Christian beliefs.

4.      Cultural and Historical Relativism: Critics question the validity and universality of Christian beliefs in light of cultural and historical relativism. They argue that the diversity of religious traditions and beliefs across cultures challenges the idea that Christianity is the one true faith. Skeptics contend that belief in Christianity often stems from cultural and societal influences, and that alternative religious or philosophical systems may offer equally valid and meaningful ways of understanding the world.

5.     The Problem of Evil: One of the most significant criticisms leveled against Christianity is the problem of evil. Critics argue that the existence of suffering, injustice, and natural disasters contradicts the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God. Skeptics contend that the presence of evil and suffering in the world is inconsistent with the concept of a loving and just divine creator, casting doubt on the theological claims of Christianity.

[4] In the explanation to the 95 theses, Luther remarks. “A theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the Apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone [I Cor. 2:2]. He sees and speaks of God’s glorious manifestation among the heathen, how his invisible nature can be known from the things which are visible [Cf. Rom. 1:20] and how he is present and powerful in all things everywhere. This theologian of glory, however, learns from Aristotle that the object of the will is the good and the good is worthy to be loved, while the evil, on the other hand, is worthy of hate. He learns that God is the highest good and exceedingly lovable. Disagreeing with the theologian of the cross, he defines the treasury of Christ as the removing and remitting of punishments, things which are most evil and worthy of hate. In opposition to this the theologian of the cross defines the treasury of Christ as impositions and obligations of punishments, things which are best and most worthy of love.”(LW 31.212, 225, 227).

[5] Okamoto, Joel, in-class remarks, 2023. “Theologians of glory seek to uphold God’s glory.”

[6] Mark 4:12