How do you know there’s a God? Simple question. Everyone’s grappled with it in some form. But can you answer it without a religious argument? Apparently, a lot of believers can’t. How many times have you heard (or used) these lines of reasoning:
SKEPTIC: How do you know there’s a God?
BELIEVER: Because the Bible says so.
OR
SKEPTIC: How do you know there’s a God?
BELIEVER: Because he’s changed my life.
Of course, believers aren’t always this simplistic. But if I had a nickel for every time I heard some variation 
of those answers, I could stockpile my freezer with Ben & Jerry’s New York Super Fudge Chunk. While both of those answers may be true, neither of them really carry any weight with a skeptic. To someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible, claiming that the Bible asserts the existence of God is moot. It’s like quoting Shakespeare to a headhunter. Furthermore, many people claim to have had their life changed by a higher power — but does that make the higher power, or their transformation, real?
It’s my experience that Christians are especially guilty of using arguments that undermine their beliefs. One example is the current Proposition 8 debate. As you may know, Prop. 8 is a huge issue out here in California. If approved, it would rewrite the state Constitution to define marriage as legal only if it’s between a man and a woman. This would reverse a recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. Now with the California Teachers Union officially opposing the initiative and bigshot celebrities falling in lockstep, the lines are clearly being drawn. Signs and bumper stickers are popping up everywhere; last weekend, door-to-canvassers swarmed our block. Really, the issue is more important to me than our presidential election.
As you can imagine, many churches have vested interest in supporting this proposition. But as I see it, using religious arguments to support Prop 8 is the wrong thing to do. Far too many people, when asked why they oppose the homosexual lifestyle, will say something like, “The Bible says it’s wrong,” or “God didn’t create Adam and Steve.” While I agree with those sentiments, we must remember that many citizens do not share our religious convictions. Quoting the Bible, especially with the militancy that some well-meaning Christians do, often has the reverse effect of alienating those who share our values.
I’m sure some could interpret this as being a compromiser or a sell-out. I mean, if the Bible condemns the gay lifestyle, then why not come out and say so? But just like the above “God” question, the best answers are the ones that engage and transcend slogans, that build on peoples’ existing beliefs, confirm their own convictions, employ logic and evidence, and establish common ground. While the Bible DOES oppose homosexuality, there are arguments outside of Scripture — cultural, medical, sociological and philosophical — that are just as valid and forceful. In the case of prop 8 (and really many other social issues), the “non-religious” arguments are the most pervasive and powerful.
Believe it or not, this tact has a Scriptural basis. The Bible teaches that it is not the sole source of revelation. Romans chapters 1and 2 tells us that God gives a witness to everyone, that he’s written his law in our hearts and minds, and that the very order of creation speaks of his power. The apostle Paul summarizes:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20 NIV)
Nature and the human conscience both gives witness of God’s Truth. This is what theologians call general revelation. How do I know there is a God? Well, two of the best evidences don’t even require the Bible — (1) NATURE: Creation implies a Creator; Design implies a Designer, and (2) CONSCIENCE: Moral Law implies a Moral Lawgiver; intuitive guilt assumes both obligation and dissonance.
Likewise, when arguing for traditional marriage and/or opposing homosexual marriage in the public square, our primary arguments should be “non-religious.” The moment we start basing our arguments on Scripture, the more we potentially alienate those who agree with us, blur that ethereal Church / State line, and conjure the baggage of so many negative religious stereotypes. Of course there’s a time when Christians need to invoke the name of Christ and quote Scripture. But when it comes to politics, lifestyle, and culture, a shrewd, nuanced approach is often the most biblical.
Mike, my reasoning regarding Prop 8 has more to do with a political argument (and one that I think should be behind everyone’s concern about the presidential election, too). The California Supreme Court countermanded the will of the people. The citizens of our state passed a simple definition of marriage, with no language that could be twisted into some kind of prejudice against homosexuals. Nevertheless our activist judges struck down the law. Basically, they said they would not allow the people of California to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
That fries me!
But it also highlights what liberals are really all about. They talk big—about government being for the little guy and about every vote counting—until the little guy passes a law they don’t like. Then the liberal judges usurp the role of the people and of the legislative body to create the laws the way they want. This is not right.
But the President is the one who appoints these judges. Not only the Supreme Court justices, but federal and appellate judges. A liberal has no problem screening judges for those who will legislate from the bench along liberal lines. A conservative will appoint judges who have a strict view of the constitution and will not legislate from the bench. Hence, conservatives have much to fear from liberal judges, while liberals have little to fear from conservative judges (though women’s lib types are so afraid a conservative court will overturn Roe v. Wade).
It’s ironic because some people are so upset about what they perceive has been a presidential power grab by President Bush. It’s crazy. Why would a person who is in office for eight years at most be interested in solidifying all power into the hands of the President? But judges … these men are appointed, not elected, and they are in office for LIFE. Now they have reason to want power.
Becky
I see your point. I haven’t followed the news as much as I should because, honestly, at some point it all sounds like variations of the same thing – like being stuck in a beehive.
Becky, wasn’t that one of the things the founding fathers feared? I can’t remember who said it, but one of them said that the one thing they feared was the amount of power that potentially lay with the judicial branch. Not the legislature, not the executive. The judicial – for that very reason. Yes, we have the checks and balance system, but the greatest potential for usurping power has always been in the hands of the judges.
Makes you wonder, since their job is to interpret the law and rule based on their findings. Makes you wonder, then, that Scriptures place so much weight on people who study and teach Scripture. The principle isn’t that different.
End tangent.
Per the existence of God – that’s one question I never really understood. Yes, I get your point. But honestly, it’s like I said to someone the other night: I could physically bring my friend Karen to you, introduce you, explain this is my friend Karen.
In the end, though, even if I bring you her birth certificate, fingerprints, and DNA map, you could still choose to not believe me. You could still decide it was really Karen’s twin, regardless of whether or not such a twin exists.
I personally think the existence of God question is a bad one, for that reason. It’s like me walking up and asking you if you can prove your wife exists. Even if you could, you’d probably be moving from surprised to slightly offended pretty quickly.
But maybe I’m weird.
Kaci, the existence of God question is the most basic question Christians should be prepared to answer. It’s why atheists are so often, so militant: If you can disprove God’s existence, Scripture, Christ and prophecy all tumble. You’re right, there’s a difference between evidences for God’s existence and believing those evidences. The former is something Christians should be prepared to persuasively answer, the latter is completely out of our control and resides in the hearts of the hearers. But just because people can choose to reject the evidence does not mean we shouldn’t present it.
As regards evidence and faith, I like how Pascal put it (paraphrase): God’s given enough evidence of himself to persuade the humble, but He’s allowed enough obscurity to harden the proud. In this sense, people’s “hardness” toward God may in fact be evidence of the evidence.
And by the way, I can prove my wife exists… I get her credit card bill every month.
Nice article. Thanks. 🙂 Eugene
Like I said, I agree. But after awhile it just gets frustrating.
“God reveals himself through nature and through Scripture; through the Law, Prophets, and through Jesus.”
“Really. Because which god are we talking about? Furthermore, your Scriptures were picked through by men to create a canon, and there are flaws in them. Furthermore, I don’t believe your Scripture, and Jesus never claimed to be God.”
“Okay, except for all the times they tried to kill Jesus for claiming to be God; minor pen-stroke errors we know about; and God being smart enough to preserve his own books.”
“Besides, you don’t need a god for matter to exist.”
“Okay, so where’d matter come from?”
“I don’t know. It was always there.”
“Really. Doesn’t that make matter divine?”
“Of course not.”
“How?”
“Because it doesn’t.”
“Really. How?”
“Don’t be a punk.”
Or, “Atheism is itself a religion.”
“No, by definition it can’t be.”
“No, by definition it doesn’t believe a deity exists. However, mankind as the highest evolved species takes on divine properties. If you live for yourself, you become your own god.”
“I don’t believe god exists!”
“Yet you are the center of your universe.”
“There is no center of the universe!”
“Says who?”
“Science!”
“So science is divine?”
“There is no divine!”
“How do you know?”
“You can’t prove it!”
“And you can prove otherwise.”
“No, that’s the point. You can’t have miracles and supernatural and whatnot because they defy natural law.”
“But doesn’t evolution have to defy natural law to work?”
“No.”
“Oh. So where did matter come from again?”
“it just happened.”
“I thought spontaneous generation wasn’t possible, and that the matter that exists can neither be created nor destroyed.”
“Well, yes, but that’s different.”
“How?”
“It is!”
Or, my personal favorite (and never actually ask me this question):
“God can’t exist because bad things happen.”
“Really. So define evil.”
“You know, evil. Natural disasters, murder, etc.”
“Okay. Define good.”
“Well, you know. This is simple.”
“So we define morality, too?”
“Yes.”
“Doesn’t that make you gods?”
“No.”
“Oh. So how do you define good and evil?”
“By whatever I or the culture defines.”
“So you or culture is god?”
“There is no god!”
“Yet you keep giving me these ultimatums from nowhere.”
It’s just tedious. Maybe I’m mean.
The verse about not casting your pearls before swine comes to mind. Not that our objectors are swine, but that there comes a point when we should stop wasting time. A good, sustainable argument for the Christian worldview, in the context of an ongoing, respectful relationship, may do more than one-liners. The tedium of debating such a soul should not dissuade us from either (1) polishing biblical pearls, and/or (2) casting them before potential pigs. Grace to you, Kaci!
Hehe. I was in a weird mood yesterday, and also didn’t want you thinking I was a cop-out. The truth is I know few non-Christians (at least, professing) and normally wind up putting out fires on the home front.
You’re right – so no contest. 0=)
Great dialogue, Kaci.