Does God exist? This is a fundamental question, one which most of us ask ourselves at some time in our lives.
If God exists, then human existence may have a purpose, and we may even hope for eternal life. If not, then we must create any meaning in our lives for ourselves: no meaning will be given to them from outside, and death is probably final. When philosophers turn their attention to religion they typically examine the various arguments that have been given for and against God’s existence.
They weigh up the evidence and look closely at the structure and implications of the arguments. They also examine concepts such as faith and religious belief to see if they can make sense of the way people talk about God.
The starting point for most philosophy of religion is a very general doctrine about the nature of God, known as Theism.
This is the view that one God exists, that he or she is omnipotent (capable of doing anything), omniscient (knows everything), and supremely benevolent (all-good). Such a view is held by most Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike. Here I will focus on the Christian view of God, though most of the arguments will apply equally to the other Theistic religions, and some will be relevant to any religion.
KNOWLEDGE, PROOF, AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
The arguments for God’s existence which we have considered so far have all at times been presented as proofs.
They are supposed to yield knowledge of God’s existence.
Knowledge in this context can be defined as a kind of true, justified belief. If we were to have knowledge that God exists it would have to be true that God actually does exist. But our belief that God exists would also have to be justified: it would have to be based on the right sort of evidence. It is possible to have beliefs that are true but unjustified: for example, I may believe that it is Tuesday because I have looked at what is written on what I believe is today’s newspaper. But in fact I was looking at an old paper which just happened to have come out on a Tuesday. Although I believe that it is Tuesday (which it is), I did not acquire my belief in a reliable way, since I could just as easily have picked up an old newspaper which would have convinced me it was Thursday. So I did not really have knowledge, though I may mistakenly have thought that I did. All the arguments for the existence of God that we have examined so far have been open to a number of objections. Whether these objections are sound or not is for you to decide. Certainly the objections should raise doubts about whether or not these arguments can be considered proofs of God’s existence.
But could we perhaps have knowledge –this type of true, justified belief –that God does not exist?
In other words, are there any arguments which could conclusively disprove the existence of the God described by the Theists?
There is indeed at least one very strong argument against the existence of a benevolent God, one which I have already mentioned as a criticism of the Design, First Cause, and Ontological Arguments.
This is the so-called Problem of Evil.
GOD COULD INTERVENE
Theists typically believe that God can and does intervene in the world, primarily by performing miracles. If God intervenes sometimes, why does he or she choose to perform what can seem to a non-believer relatively minor ‘tricks’ such as producing stigmata (marks on people’s hands, like the nail holes in Christ’s hands) or changing water into wine? Why didn’t God intervene to prevent the Holocaust or the whole Second World War or the AIDS epidemic? Again, Theists might reply that if God ever intervened then we would not have genuine free will. But this would be to abandon an aspect of most Theists’ belief in God, namely that divine intervention sometimes occurs.
FAITH
All the arguments for God’s existence that we have examined have been subject to criticisms. These criticisms are not necessarily conclusive. You may be able to find counter-criticisms. But if you can’t find suitable counter-criticisms, does this mean that you should reject belief in God altogether?
Atheists would say that you should. Agnostics would return a verdict of ‘not proven’. Religious believers, however, might argue that the philosophical approach, weighing up different arguments, is inappropriate. Belief in God, they might say, is not a matter for abstract intellectual speculation, but rather for personal commitment. It is a matter of faith, not of the clever employment of reason.
Faith involves trust. If I’m climbing a mountain and I put my faith in the strength of my rope, then I trust that it will hold me if I should lose my footing and fall, though I can’t be absolutely certain that it will hold me until I put it to the test. For some people, faith in God is like faith in the strength of the rope: there is no established proof that God exists and cares for every individual, but the believer trusts that God does indeed exist and lives his or her life accordingly. An attitude of religious faith is attractive to many people. It makes the kind of arguments we have been considering irrelevant. Yet at its most extreme, religious faith can make people completely blind to the evidence against their views: it can become more like stubbornness than a rational attitude. What are the dangers of adopting such an attitude of faith towards God’s existence if you have an inclination to do so?
THE DANGERS OF FAITH
Faith, as I have described it, is based on insufficient evidence. If there were sufficient evidence to declare that God exists, then there would be less need for faith: we would then have knowledge that God exists.
Because there is insufficient evidence to be certain of God’s existence, there is always the possibility that the faithful are mistaken in their faith. And, as with the belief that miracles have occurred, there are a number of psychological factors which can lead people to put their faith in God.
For instance, the security that comes from believing that an all-powerful being is looking after us is undeniably attractive. Belief in life after death is a good antidote to a fear of death. These factors can be incentives for some to commit themselves to a faith in God.
Of course, this doesn’t necessarily make their faith misplaced, it simply shows that the causes of their faith may be a combination of insecurity and wishful thinking.
Also, as Hume argued, human beings get a great deal of pleasure from the feelings of wonder and amazement that come from believing in paranormal occurrences. In the case of putting one’s faith in God, it is important to distinguish a genuine faith from the pleasure derived from entertaining the belief that God exists.
These psychological factors should make us wary about committing ourselves to faith in God: it is so easy to be mistaken about one’s motivation in this area.
In the end, each believer must judge whether or not his or her faith is appropriate and genuine.