Over the past couple of weeks an especially determined atheist has been writing me, offering me $1000 if I can make God appear to Him in such a way that he can see and touch Him. The atheist just finished reading my book What's So Great About Christianity and it disturbed him, because it challenged his assumptions. Still, he demands unquestionable empirical confirmation. If I can only make God show his face, my correspondent sarcastically suggests, he would be happy to join the ranks of the believers.
In some ancient religions, where gods were considered to be made of the same material substance as other matter, this would be a reasonable (or at least a meaningful) challenge. But all the great religions, and certainly the Abrahamic ones, regard God as an immaterial spirit. If the atheist is willing to consider the possibility that such a God exists--as all open-minded atheists must do--then the question becomes: how can we know of the existence of immaterial things?
Scientists believe in immaterial things. How about gravity? I should write back my betting friend, offering him $1000 if he can make gravity appear to me in such a way that I can see and touch it. But of course he would indignantly reply that gravity is a force, and the existence of forces cannot be verified through direct sensory experience. Rather, their existence must be inferred through their effects. We know that something is making objects plummet to the earth. We know that something is causing the light from the sun in certain cases to bend. That something we call gravity.
Or consider dark matter and dark energy. I haven't seen them, and I bet you haven't either. In fact, no one has. The reason they are called "dark" is because they don't emit light. So how can we reasonably believe in such invisible, immaterial things? The existence of dark matter is inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. The existence of dark energy is inferred from the accelerated rate at which galaxies are flying away from each other. Scientists reason that something is holding galaxies together, and something else is causing them (and space itself) to fly apart. These somethings we call dark matter and dark energy. Interestingly scientists believe that dark matter and dark energy make up more than 90 percent of all the matter in the universe.
Applying the same mode of reasoning, I would argue that some immaterial force caused the universe to come into existence. Here is the proof: a) All material things that have a beginning must have a cause, b) We know from the Big Bang theory that the universe (not just matter but space and time itself) had a beginning, c) Therefore the universe has a cause.
Now that cause can be natural or supernatural, but we can rule out a natural cause since the universe encompasses all of nature. It is simply ridiculous to say that nature, which once did not exist, somehow caused itself to come into existence. Some people like to talk about "multiple universes" or even an infinity of universes but they have to admit that they are just making those up: there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that any universe exists except our own. Much of this kind of talk seems to be a desperate way of trying to get around the idea of God. It's faith-based atheism.
It's must more reasonable--and, invoking Occam's razor, much more intellectually parsimonious--to believe that the universe came into existence because of a non-natural or (as theists would say) supernatural cause. That cause we call God.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 33)
1. http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
FORMER ATHEIST at 9:22AM on Jan 28th 2008
2. Well, I believe in evolution. My dad made it.
Jesus Christ Himself at 9:34AM on Jan 28th 2008
3. This doesn't convince me, because its not more intellectually parsimonious to assert the existence of a complex being that needs no cause. Again, there is no empirical evidence of such a thing. It is as speculative as believing in infinite universes.
And more so, even if you could demonstrate this supernatural force, it does nothing to verify Christianity as true. That needs to be proven through other means.
AndrewV at 9:35AM on Jan 28th 2008
4. I like this person, Dinesh D'Souza. He's my kind of guy.
Anybody that sows the seeds of division and hatred so subtly is okay in my book.
Satan, the Dark Lord at 9:37AM on Jan 28th 2008
5. And by the way, something I've been wanting to tell you people for years now:
The Doobie Brothers are just allright by me.
There. I've finally said it.
Jesus Christ Himself at 9:45AM on Jan 28th 2008
6. One cannot debate the existence of God. A person either believes in him or not. The subject is totally subjective. Is science a religion? Of course not, one either agrees with it or not. Personally, I believe in God and agree with evolution. But I'm afraid poor Dinesh doesn't understand the difference.
gshort3011 at 9:48AM on Jan 28th 2008
7. Despite the quantum leaps of faith most scientists take in untested theories, most have great difficulty believing in the unseen God. As if this faith; the faith to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omni present God somehow shatters their scientific credibility. Fortunately, this God is no “dark matter” or “dark energy” and can be experienced merely by calling on His name. To our thousand dollar doubter, save your money. Read the book of John, call out to this unseen God and take a tiny step of faith. He will reveal Himself, for free!
fanmanaf1 at 9:56AM on Jan 28th 2008
8. "If you study science deep enough and long enough it will force you to believe in God." British scientist Lord Kelvin
Greg at 10:32AM on Jan 28th 2008
9. If God showed his face to us humans today,we would serve Him out of fear,not because of who He is.
Anyway,as a Christian i have not seen God,yet I see Him in many little ways.Like when someone lends a helping hand to the weak.Or when someone comforts someone.Or when we create things with our hands,that is the finger of God.
We do not understand God fully.I do not.But I think it is better to serve God because we want to.Not because we see a big fearsome guy in the sky.
aniekan thomas at 10:40AM on Jan 28th 2008
10. God does not need science to exist. nor does he need an explanation. nor does he owe us an explanation. how pompous and outright foolish to think the creator owes the creature a reason. thats as stupid as the potter owing the pot a reason for why he or she was made. the arrogance of the matter is un-settling. the insanity is evident. no wonder the bible say's that only a fool believes there is no God. He owes us nothing,we owe him the very air we breathe.
brian at 10:42AM on Jan 28th 2008
11. So, brian, do you think that in an infinite and ageless universe, we are the only intelligent life god decided to create in 2000 years? How long was god 'lonely' until he decided to create us?
If he wanted companions why didn't he just make 5 trillion angels?
K at 10:50AM on Jan 28th 2008
12. "How about gravity?" Well, the reasonable supposition is that there are particles corresponding to gravitational force. They are called gravitons. Photons were once considered more hypothetical than material in an empirically verifiable sense, too.
But the real point is this: Mr. D'Souza's dogmatic stance requires him to distort whatever scientific knowledge he has acquired into arguments for an ancient mythology attaining the status of a science.
Chris at 10:50AM on Jan 28th 2008
13. 1) dark matter and dark energy are theoretical. No one "believes" in them.
2) gravity is observable.
3) they mythological god of the bible is not observable.
These are just three points I wanted to stress since Dinesh is, as alwasy, misrepresenting.
Ryan Anderson at 10:54AM on Jan 28th 2008
14. Believers in GOD need no empirical proof; although
the proof is all-around us but the blind atheist can't see it. Therefore all the empirical proof in the world would not convince them.
STEVE.
Stephen Chizmar at 11:22AM on Jan 28th 2008
15. D'Souza errs when he states that “all the great religions, and certainly the Abrahamic ones, regard God as an immaterial spirit.”
He might want to check these twelve bible verses: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/spirit.html ten indicate that god has a corporeal body, whereas only two describe him as a spirit. D’Souza’s god stands and walks; he has a face, hands, loins, and “back parts.”
That doesn’t sound very “immaterial” to me.
cognitive dissident at 11:26AM on Jan 28th 2008