[Un]Warranted Christian Belief

I love books like this. Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga, a philosopher Time magazine once called the “leading philosopher of God.” They go on for hundreds of pages. Christian philosophy (itself an oxymoron, I believe), contends that the existence of god can be proven through argument and the use of logic. The caveat here is that they are speaking of their god, not just a god or gods, but one particular god. It’s simply assumed (since doctrinally and dogmatically, only their god exists, so of course, any god proven to exist must of necessity be their god, the god of the Nicene Creed. Obviously, this is a bit of a reach. Even assuming god’s existence can be proven philosophically, proving the existence of a higher being does not prove the contentions made by the Nicene Creed. Yet apologists love this approach.

Why? It’s hard to say. Almost inevitably, after expending 700+ pages and boring the reader to tears, they fall back on their main argument: “But what if it’s true?”

So really, all the philosophizing is just for show.

Now obviously I believe in gods. More than one. But I have no need to prove it, philosophically or otherwise.

What’s the difference, you ask?

Simply put, my view of the gods does not negate the existence of any other gods. Nor does it insist upon a narrow, exclusive, and intolerant view of the divine. Yes, my gods exist. I’m even willing to grant YHWH exists, albeit not as Christians (or even Jews) insist. YHWH is a tribal god, an ethnic deity like other gods, no less and no more powerful or influential.

So if you’re going through the trouble to tally 700+ pages to prove the existence of god (or a god) how can you be sure you’re not proving the existence of a god you didn’t intend? Say, Zeus? Or Isis? Or Odin? That’s what the cosmological argument for god’s existence demonstrates (the universe could not just exist on its own). Sure, a god, by this argument (or to put it more accurately, a creative force) must exist, but there are two obvious problems: 1) this doesn’t prove WHO the god is; and 2) scientists now postulate that the universe can exist on its own.

Unfortunately, the fix is in, and the argument is circular. By making the presupposition that there can be only one god, or that one god somehow makes more sense than many, they’ve already predetermined the outcome. Any god that exists must be their god. In all fairness, they can’t really assume anything else. They are constrained by their own beliefs, faith, and the requirements of doctrine and dogma, to make this presupposition.

The rest of us, however, are not so bound.

Thus, books like this, while no doubt resoundingly comforting to the Christian rank and file, are not compelling when presented to the rest of us. Perhaps the ignorant or ill-informed can be persuaded (but they can be persuaded of anything) but any educated person capable of rubbing two brain cells together can see the pointlessness of these over-formulated arguments.

Simply put, the argument that “it’s true because it must be true” really isn’t very convincing, and it’s not even a good argument.

An example of these problems is the statement which follows:

Separated from the extravagance of expression that sometimes characterizes Calvin, the basic idea, I think, is that there is a kind of faculty or a cognitive mechanism, what Calvin calls a sensus divinitatis or sense of divinity, which in a wide variety of circumstances produces in us beliefs about God. These circumstances, we might say, trigger the disposition to form the beliefs in question; they form the occasion on which those beliefs arise. Under these circumstances, we develop or form theistic beliefs—or, rather, these beliefs are formed in us; in the typical case we don’t consciously choose to have those beliefs. Instead, we find ourselves with them, just as we find ourselves 173with perceptual and memory beliefs. (You don’t and can’t simply decide to have this belief, thereby acquiring it.)…awareness of God is natural, widespread, and not easy to forget, ignore, or destroy. Seventy years of determined but unsuccessful Marxist efforts to uproot Christianity in the former Soviet Union tend to confirm this claim.

First of all, this is to forget that for thousands of years the existence of multiple gods was accepted as fact. By this argument, the existence of those gods is proven. Monotheistic efforts to uproot polytheistic belief took far more than 70 years. They took 700 years or more. And Christian efforts at eradication were far more forceful and unrelenting than Marxist. Thus Alvin Plantinga, a philosopher Time magazine once called the “leading philosopher of God” has proven the legitimacy of polytheistic belief. Not at all what he intended. Many of the same arguments raised in favor of one god can be used to prove the existence of many. In other words, we could say that nothing is proven if everything is proven.

In the final analysis, no philosophical argument can prove the existence of god. Some of them are just plain silly. The ontological argument for god’s existence is one of these: “The fact that God can be conceived means that he must exist.” Obviously, we can imagine many things that don’t exist. Ask any writer of speculative fiction. Does the Starship Enterprise exist? Or the Death Star? Another amusing attempt is the “moral law argument” which asserts that without god, morality is impossible. One obvious objection to this is the fact that it’s well understood that morality and ethics are ethnically based, not universal but cultural. Another argument is that evil exists and a perfect, loving god would not permit such a thing. Finally, a third argument is that scientists now posit that morality is natural, that is, biological and not religious. We are, in a sense, hard-wired to be moral.

Apologists will argue around these objections, and if put to it, simply assert that in the face of all evidence to the contrary, they know it’s true or that god did not mean for his existence to be proven and that faith is required. We can waste hundreds of pages by trotting out these arguments but as I said, they prove nothing.

People have no need to prove things that are obvious to them. They only feel a need to prove things they doubt. Everyone accepts that night follows day and that each morning the sun will come up. No faith is necessary. No proof. Nobody has fanatical beliefs about such things. But oppose to something this simple and obvious the nature of Christian doctrine. Here will be found fanaticism in abundance, and heated arguments and hundreds of pages of proofs that it is true. And if that all fails, an appeal will be made to fear: But what if it is true?

My simple response is, “but what if it is not true?” And if it comes down to two doors, one that denies all but one god, and one that accepts all gods, including that “one” god, isn’t it a simple choice? And to fear I say, any god who would punish you for being the imperfect being he made you isn’t worthy of your worship, only your fear.

So to those apologists who write these boring tomes, keep it up. I’m sure it sells to the base, to those who already believe it and merely need reassurance that they haven’t made a catastrophic error of judgment, but it won’t convince anybody else.