How We Believe_ Science and the Search for God - Michael Shermer [63]
I opened my rebuttal by explaining that there are only two types of theories: those that divide the world into two type of theories, and those that do not. I explained that God’s existence is an insoluble question, and then spent the majority of my time presenting evidence (as I do in Part II of this book) that belief in God and its expression through religion has all the earmarks of being a human creation and a social construction. In other words, I argued that humans made God, and not vice versa. In no way do I intend this belief to belittle religion or people’s belief in any way. It is a testable hypothesis that I find reasonable and supported by the evidence from comparative mythology and world religions, evolutionary biology and psychology, and the anthropology, sociology, and psychology of religion. That man made God is every bit as fascinating as the reverse; and the evidence is even better.
I expected my debate opponent (and most of the audience), of course, to disagree, but I did not expect them to give me such a hard time about not addressing Dr. Geivett’s “proofs” point by point. I touched on them briefly, but since I have always understood religious belief to be based on faith, the notion of “proving” one’s faith seems oxymoronic. Nevertheless, in each of the three rebuttal segments, and in the question-and-answer period, my opponent reviewed the “proofs” over and over, demanding (along with the audience afterward) that I either refute them or accept God.
In Christian theology these arguments for God’s existence are called apologetics, from the Latin apologeticus—“to speak in defense.” I am quite familiar with them and began my study in the 1970s with the bestseller in the popular end of this genre, Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict, with its oft-quoted argument that Jesus was a liar, lunatic, or Lord. (Since Jesus could not be either of the first two, it is argued, he was, de facto, God incarnate.) And for the past quarter century I have maintained an interest in apologetics because it is here where religion most closely intersects with science. Because we are rational, thinking beings, faith never seems to be enough for most of us. We want to know we are right, and in the Western world to know something is true is to prove it through reason or science, logic, and empiricism. Thus, arguments in favor of God’s existence and the divine origin and authority of the Judaeo-Christian religion are couched in the language of science and reason, and there have been literally tens of thousands of books written along this vein.
But the question at hand is this: do any of these proofs actually prove God’s existence? No. In fact, most of them are not so much proofs and arguments in favor of God’s existence as they are “reasons to believe” (as one organization of modern Christian apologists is called) for those who already believe. The “God Question” remains as insoluble today as it ever was.
PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR GOD
As we saw in the previous chapter, the most common reason people give for believing in God is that there are arguments and evidence that lead them to that conclusion. Here are ten of the most commonly used philosophical arguments for God, and the problems with each. Since all of them are covered elsewhere in much greater depth (indeed, entire volumes are dedicated to each), I shall allocate more space to the scientific arguments that follow, which are, I think, more effective from the believer’s perspective and thus require a more thoughtful response.
1.
Prime Mover Argument. This is the great Catholic theologian