The God of Christianity, as defined as an all-powerful,
all-knowing being, has been observed over the centuries to be more absent,
hidden and distant than people expect. A supremely powerful (God) being would
know the intricate workings of the brains of the creatures that he created and
cares for. Due to this, God also knows
what argumentation and evidence is the most effective at bringing these
individuals freely into relationship with him and into his ultimate goal of
salvation for eternity. He knows the argumentation and evidence that would
convince myself and others, what arguments I respond best to and what evidence
in nature would persuade. However, he hasn't done so and so far, seems to have
refused to give me evidence which would convince me and others of his existence.
Others have died after never seeing convincing evidence to be persuaded. The
character of an all-loving God would surely not deliberately withhold
information and evidence from individuals or not provide evidence which he
knows would convince. This seems immoral for a supremely moral being.
I want to make it absolutely clear that no part of my mind
is closed to the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, or the truth of
Christianity or religion overall. Drastically changing my mind on a particular
issue and making a U-turn is not just a hypothetical issue that I only give lip
service to. Examples of this happening to me in reality include accepting the
evidence of evolution and moving from a theistic evolutionist to an
evolutionist and changing my mind on the overall truth of Christianity to
become an atheist, amongst others, showing my desire to change if the evidence
presented itself. Other individuals and atheists have quite clearly stated that
they are desperate to believe, but just can’t bring themselves to do it based
on the lack of evidence and seem very sincere in saying so.
I have heard responses by religious people, who say that
even if the evidence was given to me and others, we would not change our mind,
which I strongly disagree with. This is one of the defining hallmarks of
science- the ability to change minds and only accept given facts tentatively,
never dogmatically holding on to previous understanding when contrary evidence
presents itself and as I scientist, I strive to make sure this is what I do in
reality.
I am not denying there is evidence for God, Jesus and
Christianity given by various philosophers and theologians over the centuries.
However, this evidence is far from the quality of evidence given for other basic
truths about the universe. As an example, take the evidence science has given
us for the truth of a round, not flat earth. This evidence is practically
universally accepted in civilisation and it seems almost comical to even
suggest, or outright deny that the earth is round. This is not in the same
category as the existence of God, divinity of Jesus or truth of Christianity.
Hundreds of religions around the world and in history have radically differing
views on all of the tenants of religions; with practically nobody knowing whom
is correct.
The truth of the existence of the God of the bible and the
many doctrines related to this seem far more important, with far more eternal
significance, to humans and to god, than some of the more obvious facts of the world
given by science such as the truth of evolution or the truth of a flat earth. The
famous quote by C.S. Lewis seems relevant here- “Christianity, if false, is of
no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be
is moderately important.” I agree. If Christianity is true, it is enormously
important. So why doesn't God provide the evidence to substantiate this?
Another common response to this objection is, “God doesn't want to overwhelm us with convincing proof. He needs to leave space for choice
and freewill and that’s why the evidence doesn't seem too strong and obvious.”
However, I find this response lacking and inadequate. We are not talking here
about a slap on the wrists for not accepting the truth of Christianity and the
salvation of Jesus and then being let off. The doctrine of hell or eternal
separation from God is the punishment, or logical consequence for this decision
and outcome. Whatever your theology on rejection of salvation, whether
annihilation or eternal torture, it doesn't seem to be justified considering
the severely lacking evidence.
In addition to this, nobody says, “The evidence for a round
earth is too overwhelming. It doesn't leave people with the choice of accepting
or rejecting this fact. We need to give people more of an chance and
opportunity of freely accepting this, without feeling compelled to do so, as we
may cause them to turn their back on this fact.” Obviously not. The truth of
the overwhelming fact of a round earth is plain to see, based on the huge field
of evidence supporting it and people can only reject it, perhaps based on a
massive conspiracy theory or suchlike. The evidence to support the truth of
this particular belief should not be censored, to rather patronisingly, protect
humans from the body of evidence that we do have, from science in its favour.
If the issue at hand is objectively true, whether the question of the shape of
the earth, or the truth of Christianity, it is irrelevant to what extent the
evidence should be broadcast or revealed to society. This example shows God
could give overwhelming evidence for his existence and no drastic consequences
will result from people having plenty of evidence at their disposal, but he simply doesn't choose to.
Over the years of searching for evidence for the truth of
Christianity, I have consistently been given evidence which is far poorer in
quality and quantity than expected. Answers like, “all the evidence you need is
in the pages of scripture”, or “it’s not about evidence, faith is all you need”,
seems to be on the bottom end of the scales of the hierarchy of rational
evidence. It is a poor reflection on the character of this deity, who only
seems to be able to whisper in his followers’ ears, drastically poor arguments
for his existence and which seem to give myself and other less confidence in
the rational basis for this belief, than if they hadn't tried to give these
poor answers in the first place.
Now of course, the explanation for the lack of good quality
evidence may be God doesn't exist in the first place, (the belief taken by
atheists) or that God is deliberately hiding himself for an unknown (and
immoral) explanation.
To end, the quote from Delos Banning McKown seems very appropriate - “The invisible and the non-existent look very
much alike.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to leave comments and thoughts!