Can we prove or disprove God's existence?

I encourage any student of religion to question the idea that the arguments for and against the existence of God can prove (or disprove) God's existence. My basic reasoning for this is as follows: If any of the arguments for God's existence worked as a conclusive proof of God's existence, then (logically) it would provide a sound reason for believing God existed and as such there would be no denying God's existence. In short, everyone would be theists. Likewise, if any of the arguments against God's existence worked to conclusively disprove God's existence, then (logically) no-one would believe God existed and (in theory) everyone would be atheists. However, the fact that the matter of God's existence is still widely debated, and that we have people all around the world who believe in God's existence and do not believe God exists, suggests the issue is far from resolved. As such, we must reject the simplistic notion that any of the arguments (either for or against God's existence) are the final word on the matter.

Rodin's "The Thinker"
(Copyright Stephen A Richards)

In light of this, it's important to approach the question of God's existence with a degree of humility. The issue has been hotly debated, and often by the finest minds, throughout much of human existence. Thus to think we can easily prove or disprove the question of God's existence beyond all doubt is rather naive.

So why do people regularly engage with others over the issue of God's existence in a simplistic and knee-jerk fashion? I would suggest that many find it hard to see anything positive in another person's point-of-view for fear that in doing so it would undermine their own beliefs. For example, atheists would be afraid that if they see any value in an argument for God's existence, that they would then have to start believing in God; with theists worrying that conceding any ground to atheists would undermine their belief in God. So quickly dismissing another person's belief is the easier option, and simply a matter of self-preservation.

The author walking on ice
(Copyright Stephen A Richards)

Yet this is a very oversimplified view of who we are and the beliefs we hold. We do not change our fundamental beliefs about things on a whim. Anytime our beliefs do radically change, this tends to happen over a period of time. If a theist or atheist is going to change their belief in God this will have taken place after many months, or even years of thinking and reflection.

Religious Studies/Philosophy of Religion is first and foremost an academic subject. It is not an attempt to convert students to either atheism or theism. Thus in order to do well in the subject, one must be prepared to engage critically, yet also respectfully, with other people's beliefs and opinions. At the end of the day, no-one has all the answers. We are all born into a particular family, society, and place in the world which has a profound influence on who we are, what we think of other people and the way we experience the world. The value in taking a subject like Religious Studies/Philosophy of Religion is that it gives us a chance to experience the world as other's do, and to critically reflect on our own place and beliefs in the grand scheme of things.

Foundations of Knowledge: Part 2 - Rationalism and Belief in God

Rationalism is an epistemological method which attempts to ground knowledge in reason. 

Rationalism is often contrasted with Empiricism, which is the attempt to ground knowledge in sense-based experience. Rationalists argue that the variable nature of sense-based experience, that experiences of the same thing can change according to the perspective of the knower, makes it an unreliable foundation for knowledge and truth (For more on this see the video, “An Introduction to Logic and Reasoning Skills - Part 2).

In contrast reason is said to provide a more objective and reliable basis for knowledge, because no matter where you are in the world or who you are, what is logically and rationally true is always going to be true.

For instance, consider the following syllogism, which is a logical method of deducing a conclusion from what appear to be unrelated premises:

• A - All men are mortal 
• B - I am a man 
• C - Therefore, I am mortal

The basic structure of a syllogism is as follows: A + B = C. Thus we deduce: If the first statement (All humans are mortal) is true, and if I am a man, then logically it follows that C is true (I am human, male and therefore mortal).

Rationalism is also associated with the scientific method. Science largely operates according to the principle that true knowledge about ourselves and the nature of the world can be found by utilising human reason and logical enquiry. Unsurprisingly, with its emphasis on faith, belief, and supernatural revelation, religious knowledge is often considered incompatible with the scientific method and Rationalism.

An example of a so-called incompatibility would be religious beliefs about the origins of life, versus scientific theories of cosmic evolution. For instance, in the Bible in the Book of Genesis, we read how God appears to create the world in the course of a week, whereas cosmic evolution suggests that the emergence of the universe and life took billions of years.

It has been suggested that religious accounts of the creation of life were the product of pre-scientific knowledge: that stories were told to help people find a meaning and purpose in life. Thus, the more humans came to understand the world they live in, the less they needed the religious worldview to explain things and fill in the gaps. All this has added to the view that religious belief and reason cannot co-exist with each other.

But for all that atheists and scientists might want to reject religious belief and the existence of God as the by-product of an unenlightened mind, it is a mistake think that Rationalism has no place for God, or that Rationalists are naturally inclined towards unbelief and atheism.

For example, the Greek philosopher Plato who was very much a Rationalist sets out an argument in “Timaeus” for the existence of a benevolent (or Good) demiurge (god/Creator), who brought the world into existence. Although Plato’s demiurge is not the same God as the one argued for in the various modern Cosmological Arguments, there are clear parallels with these, the most notable being that a Divine presence is the First Cause of everything.

One of the most famous examples of a rationalist methodology being employed to support belief in God is Anselm’s Ontological Argument. In “Proslogion”, Bishop Anselm argues that something which exists is better (or greater) than something which does not, and so concludes that God’s existence is logically preferable to God’s non-existence. This means that God actually existing is the greatest thing we can conceive of God. He also argues that the claim “God does not exist” is logically nonsensical, for to suggest that God does not exist presumes we know what it means to say God does exist (which according to him, means God exists).

One of the more striking examples of where Rationalism and belief in God meet is in the philosophy of Rene Descartes. In his “Meditations” he explores a logical and rational method for establishing true knowledge. He suggests that whilst sense-based experience and certain thoughts about his existence can be doubted, the fact that he is having doubting thoughts cannot. Thus, he concludes that whatever cannot be doubted is true (“Cogito ergo sum”).

However, whilst Descartes was certain that his “method” set out a logical and rational basis for knowledge, he still felt the need to ground it in something other than this; something absolutely guaranteed to be a constant and reliable source of truth. And so with this in mind, the Fifth Meditation concludes: “Thus I recognise very clearly that the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends on… God.’’

Finally, Reformed Epistemology sets out a rational defense of belief in God’s existence by suggesting this belief does not require proof, as many non-believers argue it does. In rejecting the call to provide evidence for God’s existence (Evidentialism), they argue instead that belief in God should be treated as a basic and justified belief. For example, just as the existence of other minds is something we consider to be a rational and logical thing to believe, yet one we cannot actually provide evidence for to conclusively prove is true, then why not regard belief in God’s existence in the same manner? If we’re not insisting on evidence to prove the existence of other minds, then why insist that we need evidence to prove (or justify) God’s existence?