THE ROLE OF REASON, EVIDENCE, AND PROOF

 

 

We are to use all of our God-given faculties to serve Him, even our minds:

 

·       And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-38)

 

There is no vacation for God’s people. Instead, we must serve Him wherever He has placed us, shedding His light in the darkness.

 

Although it is God who must open hearts and minds to believe the Gospel, there is also a place for reason and proofs:

 

·       And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. (Acts 17:2-4; 28:23-24)

 

God saves, but He invites us to partake in His work of salvation:

 

·       And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:24-26)

 

Through God’s equipping, we sow the seed, but He provides both seed and growth:

 

·       …work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Philippians 2:12-13)

 

We believers also require the reasoned evidential encouragement of the Word:

 

·       [Apollos] greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. (Acts 18:27-28)

 

Even John the Baptist, who had testified that he had seen the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus, required evidential support. Therefore, while he was imprisoned, he sent his disciples to find Jesus to confirm that He was really the Messiah.

 

Instead of telling them to tell John to “Just believe”:

 

·       …Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” (Matthew 11:4-5)

 

Jesus willingly fed John’s tormented mind with evidence, and He instructed John’s disciples to relate to him the evidence they had seen. Therefore, we shouldn’t neglect our need for evidential reassurance. More than ever, in the face of great opposition, we need this reassurance.

THE JOURNEY OF REASON

We had to subject our kitty-cat (Tidbit) to many painful experiences—multiple injections and invasive surgery, after which we had to force medications, protective clothing, and confinement upon our confused kitty.

She was unable to understand that we had subjected her to fear, pain, and confusion for her own good, but would she still love and trust us? How could she after her series of traumatic events!

Our Lord seems to have this same problem with us. There exists a great chasm between what He has promised us and the present painful reality of our lives. His Word explains that we need patience as we undergo His spiritual surgery, but we often fail to understand how our pain is necessary preparation for eternity:

•    …Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. (2 Corinthians 4:16-17)

However, we fail to see this, and trust doesn’t come as easily to us as it does to kitty. We quickly tire of waiting and despair. We demand to understand the connection between our present pain and the promised glories. Some despair of this arduous journey and choose to seek their glory here.

Meanwhile, others despair of a worldly hope. Tidbit probably “knows” that she has it better with us than to jump-ship. Yes, she tries to escape into the alluring outside, but she will return. Her instinctive reason tells her to. Perhaps our present desires tend to push aside reason.

INFERIOR GOD-SUBSTITUTES

When Paul engaged the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens, he had to speak to them in a language that they understood and respected, rather than through the Scriptures. He therefore appealed to them through the wisdom their esteemed Greek poets and through logic. He reasoned that the Creator of humanity had to be greater than what He had created:

·       “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:29-30)

These Greek philosophers were intelligent and educated. However, they were willfully ignorant and had to repent of their foolish views about God. They believed that their gods were “silver or stone,” but how could such gods create human beings and even a gnat! Clearly, they couldn’t. Science and reason require that the cause has to be greater than the effect, as DaVinci had to be greater than his paintings or as the shoemaker has to be greater than his shoes.

There are many rational reasons to believe that life, consciousness, freewill, the fine tuning of the universe...came from a supremely intelligent Source and didn't just magically and naturally appear uncaused out of nothing, even before the "natural" even existed.

Science is predicated on the fact that every effect has an adequate cause(s). If the effect didn't have an adequate cause, it would mean that part of the effect had been uncaused, a scientific and logical impossibility. It would also mean that science searches for non-existent causes. This means that life had to have a cause greater than itself. Only the eternal uncaused God is adequate to cause such effects or even the smallest atom. And only the God of the Bible is adequate to explain all the phenomena of the universe.

To believe in gods of “gold and stone” might seem to be the height of foolishness and denial, but it is no more foolish than to believe that everything appeared out of nothing. Therefore, we must repent of all of our god-substitutes.

IF WE BELIEVE, WHY SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT DEFENDING THE FAITH (APOLOGETICS)?

For one thing, apologetics, the defense of the faith, is not an option. Instead, we are commanded to make a defense for the faith:

• But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense [“apologia” in the Greek] to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1 Peter 3:15-16)

Moses knew that he had to make a defense for the faith once he’d return to the Israelites, claiming that God had sent him to lead the His people out of bondage in Egypt:

·       Then Moses answered, “But behold, they [the Israelites] will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you.’” The LORD said to him, “What is that in your hand?” He said, “A staff.” And he said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses ran from it.  But the LORD said to Moses, “Put out your hand and catch it by the tail”—so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand— “that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.” Again, the LORD said to him, “Put your hand inside your cloak.” And he put his hand inside his cloak, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous like snow. Then God said, “Put your hand back inside your cloak.” So he put his hand back inside his cloak, and when he took it out, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh. “If they will not believe you,” God said, “or listen to the first sign, they may believe the latter sign. If they will not believe even these two signs or listen to your voice, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground, and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.” (Exodus 4:1-9)

The LORD (“Yahweh”) did not tell Moses, “Just tell those Israelites to believe!” In fact, the Bible never asks us to believe without evidence, without reasons to believe. The Bible never tells us to close our minds in order to experience God. Instead, it tells us to love the Lord with all of our minds.

The Pharisees had tested Jesus by asking Him, “Which is the greatest commandment?”

·       And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37)

We are not to turn off our minds in order to get close to God or to experience Him. Instead, we are to turn our God-given minds up to their highest setting possible to receive everything that God wants to give us. He wants to give us understanding and reasons to believe – evidences. This is what He had given to Moses so that the people would believe.

It is these reasons that had become the basis for their faith. Forty years later, Moses reminded Israel of what they had seen:

·       “Did any people ever hear the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and still live? Or has any god ever attempted to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, by wonders, and by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by great deeds of terror, all of which the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him. Out of heaven he let you hear his voice, that he might discipline you. And on earth he let you see his great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire. And because he loved your fathers and chose their offspring after them and brought you out of Egypt with his own presence, by his great power.” (Deuteronomy 4:33-37)

Faith is not a leap into the darkness but an embrace of the light of truth. Is it different now in New Testament times? Does God no longer give us a rational basis for our faith?

Certainly not! Jesus performed miracles and prophesied about what would soon happen so that His disciples would believe:

·       “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe.” (John 14:28-29)

Jesus didn’t tell them, “Just believe,” but He provided them with an evidential foundation for their faith. We need an evidential foundation, especially as we go through trials. John the Baptist experienced as crisis of faith after he was thrown into jail. He therefore sent his disciples to Jesus to find out if He is really the Messiah.

This might seem surprising to us. John had been Israel’s greatest prophet. He had even seen the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus in the form of a dove. He had proclaimed about Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” How could he now doubt? Wasn’t he above doubt? No! He too needed evidential reasurances.

And what did Jesus tell John’s disciples? Did He tell them:

·       Go tell John, “Just believe. He already has enough reasons to believe?”

No! Instead, He provided more reasons to believe:

·       And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. (Matthew 11:4-5)

Above all, we need to have confidence that the Bible is the very Words of God,

How can we face the world with the confidence and the boldness we need if we can’t be confident about the basis of our faith! We can’t! Before I went to seminary, I had subscribed to “Biblical Archeology Review” (BAR).  Many of the authors wrote approvingly of the “Wellhausen Hypothesis”– a radical theory of how the Hebrew Scriptures were humanly assembled by cutting-and-pasting from pre-existing manuscripts. The contributors to BAR seemed to be so confident about their working theory that they didn’t even bother to provide any evidence for it.

I was troubled but decided that I would lock my doubts away, pushing them back into a crevice of my mind until, perhaps, I might have the tools to critically examine them. However, this strategy didn’t work. The doubts that this theory had provoked interfered with both my reading of Scripture and my faith. Consequently, I read the Bible less and with less excitement. The doubt that the Bible might merely be a human creation festered in the back of my mind.

Fortunately, I was struck down with a bad back for several months. Meanwhile, someone gave me a copy of Gleason Archer’s “Survey of Old Testament Introductions.” Although it was one of the driest texts I’ve ever read, I cried my way through it. Archer dealt conclusively with the “Wellhausen Hypothesis” and restored my Bible back to me, as if Jesus Himself had been restored.

I think that it is inevitable that without understanding the rational foundations of the faith and without knowing how to critique the challenges, our faith and life will suffer.

We all experience challenges that come against our faith. The Apostle Peter warned:

·       Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. (1 Peter 4:12-13)

Our Lord allows these trials for a reason. For one thing, they prepare us for His return by creating within us a deep longing for His return.

THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

This is one of many theistic proofs for the existence of God:

1.     REASON EXISTS.

2.     REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

3.     CONCLUSION: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST.

1.     REASON EXISTS.

This hardly requires any support. In fact, any argument against the existence of reason requires reason.

2.     REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

There are several reasons for this. Reason is elegant (simple), universal, and immutable. It must be immutable. If it isn’t, it might give us a different answer every day or year. This would make knowledge, learning, and textbooks impossible. It would also have to be impervious to explosions, heat, tornadoes, and it its. However, there are no objects in this world that are imperious to change. This suggests that reason (and also the laws of science) is immutably maintained transcendently.

Reason must also be universal or it would be different from country to country. However, reason works the same way wherever we go. We cannot explain this by simply saying that reason is a property of matter, since matter changes. Meanwhile, forces like radio or TV waves are not universal. The further we travel away from a radio station, the weaker the impulse. What this is the source of reason that it can impact us the same way in any location?

Reason is also elegant. It is simple enough to be mastered and it is also great enough to embrace the entire physical world. This harmony of reason/cosmos has enabled us to understand our world and to master many of its aspects. It seems to be part of a grand design.

Reason is like the operating system of a computer, all of which had to be intelligently created. While humans created operating systems, humans could not have created reason, since reason predates humanity. Also, the operating system must be intelligently fine-tuned to the computer if it is to be functional. Amazingly, reason seems to have also been intelligently fine-tuned to understanding this world.

Besides, the humanly created systems are always being improved, while reason remains as is and yet is adequate for all of our enterprises, whether in China or Alaska.

These qualities cannot be accounted for by a universe of molecules-in-motion or a Big Bang explosion. They can only be accounted for by an intelligent, immutable and universal Cause – something that transcends the conditions of this universe.

CONCLUSION: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST. Praise His glory, all you His creations!

This same proof can be constructed for every law of science. All are elegant, immutable, universal, and apparently transcend this universe. All reflect a Supreme Intelligence!

Should Religious Dogma be Left at the Door

Does religion or religious conviction have a place in public conversation? Many secularists insist that religion is of faith and science is of facts that can be publicly evaluated. Therefore, religion should be kept at home or just among the faithful. The late Christopher Reeves told a student group at Yale University:

·       “When matters of public policy are debated, no religions should have a seat at the table!”

Why not? One secularist tried to justify this position by claiming that religious assertions are not amenable to reason, therefore shouldn’t be taken into the public:

·       [Religious] dogma should be checked at the door, as it is inappropriate for a philosophy discussion. Dogma has its place, but that is not in a philosophy discussion. One of the eternal truths within philosophy is that appeals to authority [like the Bible] are logical fallacies - our appeals within philosophy should be limited to reason.

However, secularism - secular humanism - is also religious in nature, containing its own foundational values:

·       BERTRAND RUSSELL: “The greatest danger in our day comes from new religions, communism and Nazism. To call these religions may perhaps be objectionable both to their friends and enemies, but in fact they have all the characteristics of religions…”

·       THE FIRST HUMANIST MANIFESTO (Paul Kurtz, 1933): “Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.”

·       JOHN DEWEY, WHO SIGNED THE MANIFESTO: “Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race…It remains to make it explicit and militant.”

·       THE US SUPREME COURT (Torasco v. Watkins – 1961): “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

Some secularists still admit that their beliefs are religious. Evolutionist Michael Ruse admits that:

·       Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity…an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality... Evolution is a religion.

Even atheists are now creating their own churches! They are just as religious and even as evangelistic as the rest of us. They are also:

1.     Secular Humanists

2.     Moral Relativists

3.     Materialists

4.     Naturalists

Are any of their beliefs evidentially or reasonably supportable? No! Although we all engage in moral reasoning, a set of values must first be accepted before reason can assist in applying them. However, reason alone cannot derive values.

If this is so, the Christian should not be rejected because of his values, while the secularist or other religionists are given a free-pass. This is just outright discrimination! For instance, the courts have hypocritically ruled against the teaching of ID (or even any mention of it), claiming that ID is “religiously motivated.” But aren’t we all motivated by religious assumptions! We all have our values!

The secularist often argues the Christian should be marginalized and disqualified because his values come from a book he believes is of divine origin. Does it make any difference that our values/morality come from a book - the Bible?  The secularist argues that it should – that it constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority. But perhaps by being explicit about our source of authority, we are behaving more professionally, transparently, and with more integrity. And perhaps by denying that they too have their own sources of authority, their inculcated, unprovable assumptions, they are acting less transparently and with less integrity.

Are secular values more amenable to reason and therefore more acceptable in the public sphere? I don’t think so! Secularists are almost exclusively moral relativists. They gladly admit that their values are made-up and reflect the culture that has raised them. Yet, whenever they sit down to discuss a policy or a moral issue, they behave in an illogical manner, treating their created values as if they carried some sense of gravitas. These values can only be justified pragmatically, in terms of beneficial outcomes. But what makes these outcomes beneficial? Moral relativism is incapable of objectively declaring anything as beneficial.

Let’s look at an example. Let’s say the secularists decided that everyone deserves equal health care, but why? They argue that we are all equal and therefore deserve the same health care. However, this argumentation includes many unprovable assumptions:

1.     That we should be healthy.

2.     That we deserve anything.

3.     That there is an objective moral truth of equality.

Besides, all of their reasoning depends upon the existence of objective moral truths or laws, something that moral relativism denies.

Therefore, if the secularists were honest, they would say, “Well, we have nothing substantial to say on this issue or any issue, so let’s all go home and eat a good meal.”

Reason? In its deepest sense, it has been rejected. Meanwhile, there are many objective proofs for the divinity of the Bible – the miracles, fulfilled prophecies, wisdom, life-improving track record, and internal and external consistency. Who then is lacking in rationality?

Even if all of the secularists saw the light and decided that I was correct, and they invited me to sit at their table, I probably wouldn’t slap my Bible down on the table. Instead, I would probably want to speak a language that they could understand. This is also a matter of respect. However, I wouldn’t want to be told that “religious dogma should be checked at the door.”