Explore God Is There a God?

Transcription

1 January 19/20, 2019 Digging Deeper Explore God: Is There a God? Written by: Robert Ismon Brown (bbrown@c1naz.org) Explore God Is There a God? Background Notes Key Scripture Text(s): Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:19-20; 2:14-15; and others throughout. This series is part of Explore God Chicago 2019, a Community Outreach Initiative led by a committee of local pastors and business and ministry leaders. We all have questions about God, faith, and purpose; Explore God is a unique effort to come together to look at these questions in an open, authentic way. Join us as we explore The 7 Big Questions over the next 7 weeks. Introduction Is There a God? is the question that shapes our conversations this week. If God exists, then the grounding reality is not ultimately groundless, the supporting reality is not ultimately unsupported, and evolving reality is not ultimately without aim Affirmation of God implies an ultimately justified fundamental trust in reality. If someone affirms God, he knows why he can trust reality. (Hans Küng, Does God Exist?). Our question this week gestures toward more than arguing for the existence of a being called God, even though the form of the question suggests that. To ask Is There a God? impairs the approach we take to answering the question. Without doubt the world has many gods, any one of which could be called a god. But that s not what the question of God is really asking. To put the matter somewhat differently: God is not a being among beings; God is the ground of all being. 1 That may sound a bit too philosophical for the average believer or seeker. Indeed it may suggest that what we mean by the word God is an abstract idea which lacks the familiar understanding that God is personal. We must take those concerns into consideration when we explore God s existence this week. Küng, in my judgment, correctly frames the question without using the indefinite pronoun a when speaking about God. The challenge of the question lies in the meaning of the word God since it admits of a variety of interpretations. To says that God exists in an ultimate sense means that God is the ground of existence itself, and that without God there would be no existence at all. An older form of this consideration is Why is there something rather than nothing? God is the source of all being as a whole, and of all beings that exist by virtue of that source. That is why the biblical writers who gave us the book called Genesis began with the central claim: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1). With that simple, elegant sentence, the truth about God finds its voice. God s relationship to the universe is spelled out, announcing that God precedes the existence of the world and that God makes possible its existence. Beginning is not a point in time, but rather is the existence of time itself. Heavens and earth are not places in space, but rather the existence of space itself. Time and space appear to our perceptions, and they give shape to our conceptions of what exists. God is not only the supreme source of time and space, He is also the supreme 1 This sentence comes in various forms from the theologian Paul Tillich. -1-

2 source of our capacity to perceive and conceive of whatever exists in time and space. Without God as the source of existence, nothing would exist neither the universe nor the capacity to know the universe. In more poetic terms, the Hebrew poets offer the following majestic description of God and the world: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4a). When the poet uses the word glory, he intends to tell us about the being of God, and not merely to identify a being called God. The poet knows what Hans Kung affirmed in the quote above: God is the ground for all reality. God gives voice to what God creates by infusing it with being from His 2 own being. Heavens, skies, day, night, and all the earth show the existence of God by means of their own existence. In this metaphorical form, the language of the psalm permits all existing things to have their voice. They speak because God has spoken His existence into them. To hear their voices is to hear His voice, and therefore to hear the evidence of His existence speaking through them. The Character of the God Who Exists A casual survey of the major religious traditions that lend their witness to belief in God s existence reveals the consistent viewpoint expressed above that what we call God is the ground for everything that exists. That survey includes Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Each tradition, in its own language, acknowledges that God is Supreme Being to whom all things owe their existence: not as a God within the world; nor as a God at the beginning of a series of other beings; but rather as the source of every god, power, or material thing. To be clear: these separate religious traditions do not say the same things about the further details of God s Being, although they share many of His attributes in common. St. Paul, in his letter to the cosmopolitan Romans who entertained a myriad of gods, could write freely about the common threads that bound all such beliefs together when speaking about the supreme God: 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 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. (Romans 1:19-20). 14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. (Romans 2:14-15). These texts echo the essential ideas we have described so far. God speaks through what He has made, about His essential nature. His speech extends not only to the heavens above and the earth below, but also to the human heart within. Paul presents to his audience the law-like quality of human conscience that bears witness to the evil in what it accuses and to the good in what it defends. And so the moral character of God appears in the moral law of humanity. Joel Lindsey clarifies this moral evidence for God: Most people operate from a set of strongly held moral principles. Those who dispute the existence of God adhere to this moral code without an objective basis for why some things are right and others are wrong. But the simple claim that there are right or wrong behaviors unavoidably implies that there is some sort of higher standard defining what is good or bad. For example, most people would say it is wrong to steal a woman s purse. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding a thief s action, there is a basic moral standard in operation. Something in us says, Taking what isn t ours is wrong. Where do we get this moral standard? Within many religions, our idea of right and wrong comes from a God who created the world and established the moral order. 3 2 Our use of His for God is not a reference to gender, but to the character of God as personal agent. The English language lacks a suitable pronoun to express personal identity without explicit gender. 3 From the Explore God website: -2-

3 Coupled with strong moral orientation is the inner human drive for a higher reality that reaches beyond the limitations of creaturely life. In part this desire is the admission of ultimate dependence on Another. Philosophy identifies the idea of contingency within the universe, namely, that all things depend on other things for their conditional existence. From this dependence we infer that things do not have within themselves the principle of their own existence; they are not self-existent beings, but are contingent beings. Auburn Layman has remarked: Whether or not we believe in God, humans are, by nature, worshipers. We all choose something as the object of our ultimate devotion. It may be a loved one, a band, a sports team, a job, or even ourselves, but each of us select our own objects of worship and focus our time, energy, and money there. What if this predisposition to worship is actually an internal longing to know God? What if God created within mankind a deep desire to know him? C. S. Lewis, the famous scholar, novelist, and atheist-turned-christian, illustrated this point: If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. 4 As adherents to the Christian and Jewish belief systems understand it, God created humans with great care and deep concern for each of us individually. God cares for each person s joy, well-being, and unique life path. Thousands of years ago, the Hebrew psalmist rejoiced in this, singing of God s great love for him. Using similar language, Paul spoke to the educated Athenians in his eloquent defense before the Greek Areopagus: 24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' 29 "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 man's design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:24-31). The God who exists, Paul explains, is the living God who imparts existence to the world He has made. As creator, God is distinct in His own being from what He creates. His attributes, described in this text, include Lord (or Sovereign Ruler), without limitation to the confines of human temples, without dependency on His creatures for sustained existence, giver of purpose, ever-present, desirous of human relationship, and independent of the material forms cast as His images. This God is involved in the affairs of human creatures, revealing His mercy ( he overlooked ), justice, and moral agency ( commands all people to repent ). He enters human history through the man he has appointed, and through that man He promises to re-order the world with true justice by giving the sign of resurrection as His pledge to do so. What He desires is that human beings seek Him who is the ground of their being, and so places in their hearts that desire for Him. In the 4 th century CE, the theologian/philosopher, Augustine of Hippo summarized desire for God in one sentence: You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you. 5 The wider context for that sentence is Augustine s reflection on the nature of God and how His nature relates to the fact of His existence. We include that lengthy passage for your further consideration. It is noteworthy that Augustine wrote these words in the form of a prayer, addressed to the God who ignited the desire he felt in his heart. Great are you, O Lord, and exceedingly worthy of praise; your power is immense, and your wisdom beyond reckoning. And so we men, who are a due part of your creation, long to praise you we also carry our mortality about with us, carry the evidence of our sin and with it the proof that you thwart the proud. You arouse us so that praising you may bring us joy, because you have made us and drawn us to yourself, and our heart is unquiet until it rests in you. 4 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York: HarperCollins, 1952), Confessions, from the larger passage in Lib 1,1-2,2.5,5: CSEL 33,

4 Grant me to know and understand, Lord, which comes first. To call upon you or to praise you? To know you or to call upon you? Must we know you before we can call upon you? Anyone who invokes what is still unknown may be making a mistake. Or should you be invoked first, so that we may then come to know you? But how can people call upon someone in whom they do not yet believe? And how can they believe without a preacher? But scripture tells us that those who seek the Lord will praise him, for as they seek they find him, and on finding him they will praise him. Let me seek you then, Lord, even while I am calling upon you, and call upon you even as I believe in you; for to us you have indeed been preached. My faith calls upon you, Lord, this faith which is your gift to me, which you have breathed into me through the humanity of your Son and the ministry of your preacher. How shall I call upon my God, my God and my Lord, when by the very act of calling upon him I would be calling him into myself? Is there any place within me into which my God might come? How should the God who made heaven and earth come into me? Is there any room in me for you, Lord, my God? Even heaven and earth, which you have made and in which you have made me can even they contain you? Since nothing that exists would exist without you, does it follow that whatever exists does in some way contain you? But if this is so, how can I, who am one of these existing things, ask you to come into me, when I would not exist at all unless you were already in me? Not yet am I in hell, after all but even if I were, you would be there too; for if I descend into the underworld, you are there. No, my God, I would not exist, I would not be at all, if you were not in me. Or should I say, rather, that I should not exist if I were not in you, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things? Yes, Lord, that is the truth, that is indeed the truth. To what place can I invite you, then, since I am in you? Or where could you come from, in order to come into me? To what place outside heaven and earth could I travel, so that my God could come to me there, the God who said, I fill heaven and earth? Who will grant it to me to find peace in you? Who will grant me this grace, that you should come into my heart and inebriate it, enabling me to forget the evils that beset me and embrace you, my only good? What are you to me? Have mercy on me, so that I may tell. What indeed am I to you, that you should command me to love you, and grow angry with me if I do not, and threaten me with enormous woes? Is not the failure to love you woe enough in itself? Alas for me! Through your own merciful dealings with me, O Lord my God, tell me what you are to me. Say to my soul, I am your salvation. Say it so that I can hear it. My heart is listening, Lord; open the ears of my heart and say to my soul, I am your salvation. Let me run towards this voice and seize hold of you. Do not hide your face from me: let me die so that I may see it, for not to see it would be death to me indeed. From these reflections of the character of God, thinkers like Augustine discover the strong connection between the statement, God exists and the further statement of How God exists. The classic way of thinking about this is to talk about the essence of God (who, what, how He is) and the existence of God (that He is). This has led some scholars to suggest that the essence of God leads to the recognition of the existence of God. If God is like this, so goes the argument, then God must exist. St. Anselm deployed a form of this argument which has been dubbed The Ontological Argument (ontos means being in Greek). Because the direction of the argument is from the idea of God to the existence of God, some thinkers find the approach unpersuasive. Moving in a different direction, while remaining consistent with traditional religious understanding of God, was the work of Thomas Aquinas in the 13 th century CE. Aquinas presented what he called Five Ways for Knowing God. Relying on the re-discovered philosophy of Aristotle, Aquinas suggested several approaches for honest seekers to discover the truth of God existence. He relied on the evidences found in the natural world that pointed to the source of all things. That is, he moved from the particular to the general using a form of what we would call inductive reasoning. Aquinas offered this approach, not in place of the biblical evidence, but to provide another way more readily accepted by a non-religious audience. Although his method is often seen as five arguments, Aquinas preferred the language of ways to place the emphasis on how human beings might come to know God by observing the world that He has made. In what follows, we cite the work of Matt Stefon who gives a general overview of the approach Aquinas followed in his lengthier explanation from the Summa Theologica (from the Prima Pars, Q.2). -4-

5 Aquinas s first three arguments from motion, from causation, and from contingency are types of what is called the cosmological argument for divine existence. Each begins with a general truth about natural phenomena and proceeds to the existence of an ultimate creative source of the universe. In each case, Aquinas identifies this source with God. Aquinas s first demonstration of God s existence is the argument from motion. He drew from Aristotle s observation that each thing in the universe that moves is moved by something else. Aristotle reasoned that the series of movers must have begun with a first or prime mover that had not itself been moved or acted upon by any other agent. Aristotle sometimes called this prime mover God. Aquinas understood it as the God of Christianity. The second of the Five Ways, the argument from causation, builds upon Aristotle s notion of an efficient cause, the entity or event responsible for a change in a particular thing. Aristotle gives as examples a person reaching a decision, a father begetting a child, and a sculptor carving a statue. Because every efficient cause must itself have an efficient cause and because there cannot be an infinite chain of efficient causes, there must be an immutable first cause of all the changes that occur in the world, and this first cause is God. Aquinas s third demonstration of God s existence is the argument from contingency, which he advances by distinguishing between possible and necessary beings. Possible beings are those that are capable of existing and not existing. Many natural beings, for example, are possible because they are subject to generation and corruption. If a being is capable of not existing, then there is a time at which it does not exist. If every being were possible, therefore, then there would be a time at which nothing existed. But then there would be nothing in existence now, because no being can come into existence except through a being that already exists. Therefore, there must be at least one necessary being a being that is not capable of not existing. Furthermore, every necessary being is either necessary in itself or caused to be necessary by another necessary being. But just as there cannot be an infinite chain of efficient causes, so there cannot be an infinite chain of necessary beings whose necessity is caused by another necessary being. Rather, there must be a being that is necessary in itself, and this being is God. Aquinas s fourth argument is that from degrees of perfection. All things exhibit greater or lesser degrees of perfection. There must therefore exist a supreme perfection that all imperfect beings approach yet fall short of. In Aquinas s system, God is that paramount perfection. Aquinas s fifth and final way to demonstrate God s existence is an argument from final causes, or ends, in nature (see teleology). Again, he drew upon Aristotle, who held that each thing has its own natural purpose or end. Some things, however such as natural bodies lack intelligence and are thus incapable of directing themselves toward their ends. Therefore, they must be guided by some intelligent and knowledgeable being, which is God. 6 A Wager about God s Existence It is possible to reflect on the traditional approaches to understanding what it means for God to exist and yet remain distant from Him. Accepting the fact that our being flows from the source that is the Being of God does not translate necessarily into the transformation of our lives. As noted above in Paul s comments to the Athenians, there must be a seeking after the One whose Being makes our being possible. If we compartmentalize our knowledge of God into an academic exercise of pure reason, He will exist only as a category of our understanding without becoming the essential partner of our moral life. In short, we leave unanswered the crucial question, What difference does it make whether God exists or not? In the 17 th century there lived a French philosopher, mathematician and physicist named Blaise Pascal ( ). His contribution to our present discussion was his framing of God s existence in terms that unpacked the consequences of either belief or non-belief. For this portion of our study this week, we include a concise article from the contemporary writer Peter Kreeft. In it he helps us weigh the outcomes of the question, Does God exist? 7 Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensées, he wrote, "This is 6 Matt Sutton served as religion editor of Encyclopaedia Britannica for eight years, and now teaches comparative religion in Norwich University's online degree completion division. 7 Adapted from Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics (Ignatius Press, 1988). Also available online at -5-

6 conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it." That is the only time Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most sceptical philosophers who ever wrote. Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to? Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true? Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million? No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to "bet" on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win. To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief? Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights." Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally. Pascal says, "Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?" The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death. Suppose Romeo proposes to Juliet and Juliet says, "Give me some time to make up my mind." Suppose Romeo keeps coming back day after day, and Juliet keeps saying the same thing day after day: "Perhaps tomorrow." In the words of a small, female, red-haired American philosopher, "Tomorrow is always a day away. And there comes a time when there are no more tomorrows. Then "maybe" becomes "no". Romeo will die. -6-

7 Corpses do not marry. Christianity is God's marriage proposal to the soul. Saying "maybe" and "perhaps tomorrow" cannot continue indefinitely because life does not continue indefinitely. The weather will never clear enough for the agnostic navigator to be sure whether the port is true home or false just by looking at it through binoculars from a distance. He has to take a chance, on this port or some other, or he will never get home. Once it is decided that we must wager; once it is decided that there are only two options, theism and atheism, not three, theism, atheism, and agnosticism; then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the red prize. Pascal states the argument this way: You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist. If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe. As Pascal says, "I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true." If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything. But is it worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever it is, it is only finite, and it is most reasonable to wager something finite on the chance of winning an infinite prize. Perhaps you must give up autonomy or illicit pleasures, but you will gain infinite happiness in eternity, and "I tell you that you will gain even in this life " purpose, peace, hope, joy, the things that put smiles on the lips of martyrs. Lest we take this argument with less seriousness than Pascal meant it, he concludes: "If my words please you and seem cogent, you must know that they come from a man who went down upon his knees before and after." To the high-minded objector who refuses to believe for the low motive of saving the eternal skin of his own soul, we may reply that the Wager works quite as well if we change the motive. Let us say we want to give God his due if there is a God. Now if there is a God, justice demands total faith, hope, love, obedience, and worship. If there is a God and we refuse to give him these things, we sin maximally against the truth. But the only chance of doing infinite justice is if God exists and we believe, while the only chance of doing infinite injustice is if God exists and we do not believe. If God does not exist, there is no one there to do infinite justice or infinite injustice to. So the motive of doing justice moves the Wager just as well as the motive of seeking happiness. Pascal used the more selfish motive because we all have that all the time, while only some are motivated by justice, and only some of the time. Because the whole argument moves on the practical rather than the theoretical level, it is fitting that Pascal next imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. Pascal then answers the objection with stunningly practical psychology, with the suggestion that the prospective convert "act into" his belief if he cannot yet "act out" of it. If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith, and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have.... They behaved just as if they did believe. This is the same advice Dostoevsky's guru, Father Zossima, gives to the "woman of little faith" in The Brothers Karamazov. The behavior Pascal mentions is "taking holy water, having Masses said, and so on". The behavior Father Zossima counsels to the same end is "active and indefatigable love of your neighbor." In both cases, living the Faith can be a way of getting the Faith. As Pascal says: "That will make you believe quite naturally and will make you more docile." "But that is what I am afraid of.'' ''But why? What have you to lose?" An atheist visited the great rabbi and philosopher Martin Buber and demanded that Buber prove the existence of God to him. Buber refused, and the atheist got up to leave in anger. As he left, Buber called after him, "But can you be sure there is no God?" That atheist wrote, forty years later, "I am still an atheist. But Buber's question has haunted me every day of my life." The Wager has just that haunting power. -7-

8 Knowing God s Existence by Listening The biblical text gestures in a similar direction as Pascal s wager. As with all biblical texts, those which follow function as witnesses to the Word of the living God; they point in a certain direction and by pointing they invite what I have come to call the holy experiment of serious faith. Hearing the words of the biblical writers is listening to the invitation and then resolving to make an honest effort to move in the direction they recommend. The listener may not yet have faith nor begin the movement with assurance of the outcome. The acquisition of faith lies along the journey which the witnesses point. And so, You who have ears to hear, listen 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:6). 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13). 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:17). 16 Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. 17 If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. (John 7:16-17). If a person would sincerely know the truth about God s existence, that person would spend time in the places where He is said to be present. One such place is the witness of the Bible. We have already made several references to the Bible in our comments this week. They serve the purpose of sign-posts, of markers, of pointers and gestures that awaken awareness of the reality of God. That said, reading the Bible in a wholly solitary way without companions on the journey may lead to perplexity and misunderstanding about what its words are signaling. To this recommendation about the Bible we add further counsel that seekers of God spend time with others who are living witnesses to His presence and existence. Reading and reflecting on the Bible in the presence of others who say that they have found Him contributes enormous perspective and helpful guidance that would otherwise be missing in the solitary reading of Scriptures. Our proposal here is that the pursuit of God takes place within the context of those for whom He is a living reality and for whom His Word has made substantial difference. Bringing others into the conversation transforms the words of the Bible into living witnesses of God s own Word. Observing the speech and actions of those for whom God matters, for whom God truly exists, adds the dimension of the true witness that confirms the witness of the Bible itself. The truth about God becomes, on these terms, a collaborative effort that leads to a corroborative understanding of God s Word. The early followers of Jesus came to faith in precisely this fashion, and the biblical record offers the testimony to that process. They shared a common life as seekers and discoverers, as questioners and auditors, as doubters and believers. Among them was an educated physician named Luke who began his written account of Jesus by saying to his conversation partner: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4). John, one of the apostles, reminded his community of novices and veterans alike: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3). From texts like these, even the most tentative seeker of truth can see the importance which early Christians placed on the role of witnesses to the truth of God. They came to believe the God who truly exists through a coherent process of growing faith and also through gracious fellowship. Leaders in the early Christian church -8-

9 highly valued the honest examination of biblical witness within the setting of sustained fellowship where they were welcomed at the table of like-minded people. 10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. (Acts 17:10-12). Notice the narrative language of this text: noble character, received the message, examined the Scripture in search of truth. Both the religious Jews and the secular Greeks were involved in the process which put the witnesses in front of them to the test of truth. It was in their noble character to do so. The Greek word used by Luke to characterize the attitude of this group of seekers is eugenēs, a term primarily indicating social nobility, but also points to open-mindedness. It also suggests bravery in the pursuit of new ideas and fertility in the cultivation of fruitful understanding (Liddell-Scott Lexicon). That is, they were willing to risk the proposal contained in the message of the apostles; a proposal that God exists in the person of His Son, Jesus, the one who reveals Him to the world. The apostles, Paul and Silas, cultivated and encouraged an openness within the fledgling community of the synagogue, and the fruit of that effort led to an eager and robust embrace of God s good news. The question of God s existence is not settled solely on individual terms or only with private means of argument. Scripture by its very nature is a social text, the result of collaborative effort within the setting of both Jewish and Christian congregations. Opening the book necessitates the existence of open communities of faith where speech and action corroborate books, sentences, and words. The book belongs to the broader process of what we have come to call the worshipping community that is anchored in the shared experience of worship, study, and service. To the Jewish people we owe a considerable debt of gratitude for nurturing in their own communities the growth of that portion of our Bibles we call the Old Testament old, not because it is irrelevant, but because it comes first, is original, foundational, and formative of a people called Israel, whose birth and existence remains the living witness to the existence of the living God. They became the people of the book that begins with the first proposal of their faith: In the beginning, God (Genesis 1:1). Their prophet Moses would later add his own witness to the Word of the living God by saying, I am Yahweh your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery have no other gods before Him (Exodus 20). The growth of the book for Israel is itself the tangible evidence of God s living presence among His people. In simple terms: no God, no Israel; no Israel, no book. When the fortunes of Israel were shattered by invasion and captivity, a later generation would further nurture the growth of the book, adding fresh witnesses to the faithfulness of God and the truth of His existence. 8 They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read. 12 Then all the people went away to eat and drink, to send portions of food and to celebrate with great joy, because they now understood the words that had been made known to them. (Nehemiah 8:8, 12). To the persistence of the people of the book, followers of Jesus give their own witness. They tied their fortunes and faith to the foundation laid by their spiritual ancestors. From the careful reading of the book, so carefully handed down to them, early Christian communities discovered fresh insight and fuller understanding of the God who continues to exist among them also. Paul, himself a Jew, discovered in the Old Testament the promises that pointed to the coming of Jesus, God s Son. Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). -9-

10 The existence of God to Jew and Christian alike does not remain a question unanswered by reason or a claim unsupported by experience. When conscientious seekers enter into the story of the book, they discover the larger than life history of a people for whom God persisted as the One in whom we live and move and have our being. That declaration doesn t lurk on the circumference of human life, but occupies the honored place at the center, in communities of worshippers, scholars, readers, and servants for whom God exists in Word and deed. The earliest account of life in the Christian community comes from the careful historian-theologian Luke whom we met above in the first words of the gospel which bears his name. Having written it as volume one, Luke knew he wasn t finished with the evidences for the God who showed His existence in Jesus of Nazareth. In his companion work (volume two), called The Acts of the Apostles, he provided a similar preface: In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3). For Luke, the evidences for the existence of God appeared in the continuing life of Jesus the Son, authenticated by the gift of the Holy Spirit. The continuing life of Jesus the Son is resurrection life, the sign that God s being flows into the lifeless form of human beings so that they might share with Him the tangible reality called eternal life. The man Jesus is God s firstfruits of this life and as such is the evidence for God s own selfexistent being. Luke is also offering his witness to the deeper nature of the God who exists, that it is to a triune nature, and the eternal relation of Father, Son, and Spirit. By confirming the earthly signs of the resurrection of Jesus, Luke is simultaneously telling his audience that God s life is within Himself and not dependent on anything outside his own being. Luke gives this witness of God and His existence so that he might further narrate the story of a people called Christians whose own life depends for its existence on the God who raised Jesus from the dead. This people are the reflection of the living God by being themselves a living people. In this story, Christians join their story with the story of Israel; for the God of Christians is the God of Israel, brought to fullness by the resurrection of Jesus, God s Son. And so, the truth about the God who really exists now appears within the story told by both Jews and Christians. It turns out to be none other than the story of God Himself. Who is this God whose story His people share? God is: whoever raised Jesus from the dead, having before raised Israel from Egypt. 8 This God is the one who truly exists, who has, out of covenant love, given His own life to Israel and to the Church; both by liberation and by resurrection. The tangible evidence for the reality of God and His existence does not float on ethereal clouds above, nor on cerebral arguments below, but within the resurrection community around. Luke knew this truth about God in what he wrote about the resurrection community that took shape when the wind of the Spirit animated them with the life of God Himself. 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:41-47). God exists in the life of the people who share His own story of resurrection life. God shows Himself to be, not a being among beings, but the ground of all being precisely because He is the author of a people whose being can only be understood as flowing from His being. Those who see this sort of people, living this kind of life, within this form of community will be provoked to ask, What makes this kind of people possible? The answer to that question will ultimately be the answer to the overriding question we ask this week: Does God exist? To the extent that this people receives life and being and action from the living God who raised up 8 For this formulation of God s being we are indebted to Lutheran theologian Robert Jensen in his Systematic Theology. -10-

11 Jesus from the dead to that extent, the answer to the question of God s existence and the answer to the question of this people s existence are forever joined through the life of the Jesus whom God raised from the dead. Conclusion The path to the question of God s existence has carried us through the densely argued positions of thinkers like Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and beyond. Following this path helps us to realize that thoughtful persons down through the centuries considered the question of the utmost importance, and that the question of God s existence matters, not only for its own sake, but also for ours. We have only scratched the surface of possible ways for knowing God in light of the question posed by this week s study. Others approach the question from a wideangled survey of world religions which are the repository of belief across many different forms of worship, practice, and theology. No one who takes this survey seriously imagines universal agreement among the various sects that espouse belief in God. The point of the exercise, rather, is to notice the universal desire of human beings, through time and place, for the highest good and the greatest being. What such a survey suggests is that God is not an anomaly of human life, but rather the ground of it. Unless someone wishes to consign the majority of civilization, where belief is encountered everywhere, to the asylum, he must offer a better explanation for belief than the possible conclusion that God does in fact exist and is the reason for belief in the first place. By examining the range of evidences offered for God s existence, the honest seeker may well be impressed with the combined effect of each argument and not by fixation on a single approach. Aquinas certainly illustrated this method in his Five Ways approach. In the limited scope of our study, that is the conclusion we propose to anyone who takes seriously the possibility of God s existence. Follow the truth wherever it leads, along the variety of paths suggested, by thinkers whose arguments point in that direction. Few thinking persons can approach this question without presuppositions. Some may come to the question after once following religion in one of its forms, but then rejecting it for emotional, moral, or philosophical reasons. Perhaps then they married, had children, and suddenly started thinking about the importance of belief in shaping young lives. They decided to attend church, after years of absence, and did so to give their offspring spiritual direction. Or, tragic loss of a loved one may have turned them away from God who was now under the shadow of doubt, with the imagined failure to live up to His promises or with the harsh reality that no God exists to prevent such loss. Further, the sudden unbeliever may have found no way to reconcile the conclusions of the contemporary world, whether science or culture, with the claim that God exists. For each of these cases, the resultant life became that of an atheist for whom God does not and cannot exist, or that of the agnostic for whom God s existence lacks the necessary evidence to sustain honest belief. From these different classes of unbelievers, some have closed the door to further quests, having settled the question of God s existence by simply saying, No. Others coast through life with the inertia of unbelief until perhaps the mounting evidence of life with meaning collides with unbelief, making it no longer sustainable. This last instance may turn them into seekers once again, only this time with the perspective of adults who desire faith that matches their present life season: young, middle-aged, or senior. Given the spectrum of unbelief and the ways people take their place on its range, the question of God s existence may well invite fresh consideration. Our desire as a community of believers is to create environments where new considerations of older questions are both possible and inviting. What these environments require is a place where all ideas are on the table, where the table is open to all persons, and where conversation partners choose to stay at the table no matter where the truth may lead them. If the church of Jesus Christ takes seriously the mission they embrace, then walking the path with seekers after God includes making such environments available. We close with a surprising story. Anthony Flew was an outstanding philosopher of the 20 th century. He was also a life-long atheist, having published God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1976). His conclusions about God s existence at the time of their publication were clear: Atheism should be the -11-