Belief in God

I recently heard an argument against the problem of evil by C.S Lewis that I not only found to undermine my primary reason for atheism, but was also rather convinced by. It is an ontological argument that, if accepted necessitates good and evil as a metaphysical reality or disassembles the argument against it.

In Lewis’ own words: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.” – C.S Lewis Mere Christianity

Until I saw this I considered myself a protest atheist in the same category as Nietzsche or to some extent Hume, whom described the problem of evil as “the rock of atheism”. Since encountering this argument I have had to re-consider my reasoning as to why I don’t believe in God. The following are a few reasons I came up with and a few problems I would have to deal with in order to accept belief in God.

Argument from reason: The view of modern or scientific atheism is heavily based on the idea that God is not an observable reality and is therefore nonsensical to believe in. However I find this argument tiresome, it attempts to make religion a branch of science and by giving it this definition, causing the problem that it’s arguing against. Furthermore it is hypocritical position as it is almost saying "This doesn't make sense to me therefore it is wrong" which these same atheists use as an argument against believers. Although my main criticism of this position is that it does not allow for anything that cannot be rationally explained, for example a man’s love for his wife, or human’s unique condition of morals. This derivative position is the mark of the lazy atheist and is merely the shadow of the Enlightenment.

The Bible: As stated previously I do not consider religion a branch of science, nor vice versa, it is therefore impossible for me to accept a fundamentalist view of the bible. However accepting anything less I feel would be custom building faith. My solution to this is much the same as Philo’s in which he accounts for both a literal event and a metaphorical one. If I were to accept the bible it would be as poetry of God and humanity.

Christian geography: This is one of the biggest issues I have with the notion of Christianity as a personal belief. It begs the question “why Christianity?” I live in the Christian dominated western world, it would be just too easy to take up Christianity rather than Islam or Sikhism which I am sure I would have been inclined to do if I had been raised in the east. Of the two solutions I have encountered to this problem I find neither acceptable; the first is universal pluralism from John Hick, who acknowledges that he is a Christian by circumstance, but claims that Christianity is only a metaphor for the real God who uses Jesus Christ as an instrument of faith. Hick claim that no matter where someone is born all religions in the world are simply metaphors for an ultimate transcendent reality that he calls God. His reasoning for this appeals to Kantian moral philosophy, he claims that an immoral Christian could not be granted into heaven while a moral Muslim is condemned to hell, which is not an invalid point, if this were the case it would certainly not be just to allow an immoral believer salvation merely based on the coincidence of his birth into Christianity. It also de-values Christianity to a point where it’s not even worth being a Christian, if Hick is right what does it matter if I believe in God? I can live a moral life as an atheist.

The second solution is from Calvinism, and has adopted the term restrictive access exclusivism. The argument is that the people born into Christianity are the elect (the people whom God has predetermined for heaven) and follows three principles; the first of which is that salvation is limited to those who actively respond to the gospels in this life and those who either reject Christ or are ignorant of his presence are lost. Secondly, Christ only died for the elect. Third, neither of the previous can be deemed incompatible with justice and mercy of God as Calvinism believes in the total depravity of man, so it would be just not to save anyone. William Lane Craig writes in the middle knowledge that people who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ are people who would not have accepted his truth anyway. Craig maintains that anyone who would have accepted Jesus is given the opportunity to do so as this is part of God’s omniscience. I do not see this as acceptable either as it negates any notion of human free will. Furthermore “limited atonement” is unbiblical, within scripture it is made clear that God “wants” everyone to go to heaven. “He wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” – 1 Timothy 2:4

The Christian Church: I would find it necessary to make the disassociation between Church and Christ. “Revelation singles out the Church as the locus of true religion. But this does not mean that the Christian religion as such is the fulfilled nature of human religion. It does not mean that the Christian religion is the true religion, fundamentally superior to all other religions. We can never stress too much the connection between the truth of the Christian religion and the grace of revelation. We have to give particular emphasis to the fact that through grace the Church lives by grace, and to that extent is the locus of true religion.” – Karl Barth (Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Volume 1, part 2). If Christianity is the true religion it is only because of the gift bestowed by Jesus upon humanity and thus the Church itself exists as an extension of this. Bonhoeffer takes this point further and argues for a religionless Christianity that is totally disconnected from the humanistic aspects of Christianity; this would be the removal of the institutionalised and structured Church and its power in the world.

Divine revelation: The final and most important reason I do not accept Christianity is because the locus of its truth is Christ’s divine revelation, or as Barth puts it the “gift of Grace”. This numinous feeling that real Christian’s have that confirms their faith, I simply do not have. I do not feel God’s love or the spirit of his son, this alone is reason enough not to accept Christianity, however if this sense of divinity is true and it is the genuine presence of God it would be undeniable. Calvin might argue that it is undeniable to the elect, or that if God’s presence were undeniable it would negate the need for faith, to which I am forcibly reminded of Nietzsche - “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything”.

In conclusion atheism should be post-modern, thus not to be reformed into modern nihilism, it should not pertain to any form of absolute truth but reject a notion of God. As within atheism is an inherent acceptance of God as it has defined a God to reject. Furthermore atheism should be existential, thus to allow oneself their own individual reasons for non-belief and the disassociation of all-encompassing systems that do not allow for human experience to lead to one’s personal truth and purpose for themselves.

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” – Nietzsche