The Problem with Religion, Proof, Reason and Truth

I have finally found someone I have been looking for: a skeptic of the Christian faith who is willing to argue with me in an attitude of honor and respect.  I love having my faith challenged, but have also felt the stings of condescending remarks.  So, if you are reading this, thank you…

In our discussions on Jesus’ Resurrection a previous theme popped up: The battle between revelation and reason. 

REVELATION

In a large sense, any religion offers revelation on who a god/God is, what his/His personality is like, what he/He offers to mankind and what he/He expects from us.  The same can be said of the human sciences like psychology: The patient will start by explaining the mental or emotional frustration they experience, i.e. revelation.  Then the psychologist will make a diagnosis and provide a suggested form of treatment, i.e. reason.  If the treatment does not work the first time, it is adapted, i.e. evaluation.

The same revelation takes place in our daily lives when we build friendships or ask the grocery store lady what the price is of the apples.  A friend may tell you about their favourite hobbies and the grocery lady may tell you it’s R15.  After this revelation takes place, it may be subjected to evaluation (reason).

REASON

You may to the fruit isle and find that the price label at the bottom of the apples reads “R20.”  If you are anything like me, you would complain about this… Hehe… You call the manager and demand that the staff be properly trained so that no false messages will be sent to the shoppers.  After all, that’s just the right thing to do.  The manager responds politely, informing you that the man who does the price labelling has been sick for the past week and they forgot to adjust the apple price labels for the 25% discount.  If you are anything like me, you smile politely and apologise, grateful to pay less for the product.

THE PROBLEM OF ASSUMPTION

You might have experienced similar situations at work or at home where you see someone making an inappropriate mistake, only later to find out what the appropriate reason behind the action was.  The problem is that we have a lot of faith in our initial analysis of the situation, where should actually submit our assumptions to further scrutiny.

THE PROBLEM OF PROOF

I have heard numerous atheists ask the question, “Prove to us that God exists.”  They then have the luxury of tearing any case to shreds that the Christian would propose.  The believer must provide the revelation and the reasons and the atheist only has to do the evaluation and verdict.  This seems unfair.

For example, if I asked you, “Prove to me that your sisters’ names are Hanneke and Alna.”  Here is how the conversation might go if I am a skeptic:

You:     I can get them on the phone for you and you can ask them yourselves.

Me:      You just hired one of your friends to lie for you.

You:    I can get birth certificates from my mom and dad to show that all three of us are their children.

Me:      You just asked your parents to lie for you.  You are their son and they are subjective to supporting you. Or are they even your real parents and you hired them as well?  You could have forged the birth certificates.

You:     I could take all five of us, draw a blood sample, have it analysed for parental DNA testing.

Me:      You paid the doctors to be in on it.  You fixed the computer reports.

This seems unfair towards you.  What would be fair is if we agreed beforehand on the criteria of acceptable evidence.  Why evidence and not proof?  Well, the only arena where something can be proved with 100% accuracy is in Mathematics: where a set of values on the right hand-side equals another set of values on the left-hand side.

When it comes to proving the names of your two sisters, you cannot provide any proof.  You can only provide corroborative evidence to support your claim.  If your evidence meets the criteria of acceptance, the claim is accepted.  If not, the claim is rejected.

The problem is, skeptic atheists don’t do this.  They do not set the parameters by saying, “If these twenty criteria are met, I will believe in the deity and resurrection of Jesus.”  They still expect the Christian to provide the revelation and reasoning while they comfortably evaluate each case with dismissal by providing a possible alternative scenario (which they don’t substantiate or prove).

THE PROBLEM OF TRUTH

The truth of the matter then is no longer the issue.  The main issue becomes the skill with which the skeptic can dismiss all the evidence presented by the Christian.  It’s like two lawyers going neck at neck trying to prove a man innocent or guilty.  The prosecutor’s job is to prove that the man is guilty.  Similarly, the defendant’s job is to prove that the man is innocent. Both lawyers have a priori commitment even before the debate starts.  At the end of the day, the lawyer with the most skill is the one who will win the jury over.  The lawyers don’t care if the man is really innocent or guilty, their job is convince the jury of their view point.

There are natural truths, such as the process of photosynthesis and Newtonian Physics.  Whether I believe they are real or not, does not change their existence.  But these are the easy truths.  The more difficult ones are the moral truths: What is right and wrong for only you? What is right and wrong for only me? What is right and wrong for both of us?  What is right and wrong for ALL of us?

The post-modernist will argue that there are no moral absolutes.  Well, is that absolutely true?  This statement self-implodes:  If he believes that there are no moral absolutes, he needs to believe it absolutely.  If he does not believe it absolutely, then there are moral absolutes.

THE PROBLEM OF COMFORT AND SELF-EVALUATION

I was recently in a discussion with a non-Christian about the historical accuracy of the Resurrection of Jesus.  Skeptics may accuse Christians of blindly accepting insufficient evidence just because believers want to believe in hope, forgiveness and salvation from a cruel world.  This, however, does not leave the skeptic iron proof.  Similarly, the skeptic may reject sufficient evidence, becuase he does not want to believe in judgement after death, being held accountable for his life on earth and punishment for evil.  (Each lawyer is again committed to his case and accusing the other of being subjective.)

We need to acknowledge that for both the skeptic and for the believer, the bar of what is sufficient proof may be higher or lower.  Some may require a lot of evidence before they change their belief while others may require less.  (Then some may stick to their belief for life and death no matter what.)

Furthermore, it would be foolish to assume that the extreme skeptic position is automatically the most suitable position.  Total skeptics will become guilty of rejecting theories that are supported with valid evidence.  This is very unhealthy when you doubt the fidelity of your marriage partner, despite the fact that the person may be genuinely faithful.  The attitude is marked by distrust and doubt.  If this were me, I would have to work on my lack of faith in others who show no clear signs of unfaithfulness.

On the other hand, the extreme believer is also not a healthy stance to take.  Total believers will fall in the trap of accepting theories that are supported with false evidence.  This is similarly unhealthy for a marriage, but in this case the marriage partner may be cheating on you.  You ignore the signs of “late nights out” and “frequent business meetings” and the sense of emotional withdrawal.  This attitude probably contains fear of separation and a fear of the unknown.  If this were me, I would have to accept the evidence when I catch my partner in in bed with another person.  I would have to swallow my shame and file for divorce.

An additional problem is, neither the extreme skeptic nor the blind believer believe they are wrong: the skeptic is accused for rejecting valid evidence; the blind believer is accused of accepting false evidence; both of them think they are right; both of them think the other person is wrong and the other person must convert… Sounds like a real marriage… Hehe…

A PERSONAL STORY

In my second year of varsity, my father wanted to move to another country to start a cattle farm there.  He asked each family member what they thought about it.  Being foolish, I thought it was okay to tell the truth.  I did not support his decision at all.  Firstly, my two younger sisters were still 16 and 14 years old.  I felt that they still needed to have their father more present in their lives.  Secondly, my mother was at a very unstable part in her life.  She was working through some tough battles in her life and I feared that the distance would put additional strain on their marriage and on her.  I feared that she would snap.  Thirdly, I just wanted my dad to be close to me.

My perspective was dismissed and ridiculed before I could explain the reasons and Dad went over to start a five year project in another country.  During that time Mom did snap.

With me being the eldest and the only man in the house, I often had to face very difficult circumstances to take care of my mom and my sisters.  I feared that I was going to snap as well.

With all this happening, I built up severe resentment and bitterness towards my father.  In the brief holiday times he was at home, I withdrew from him in anger.  I criticised basically every decision he made and challenged all his reasons. 

After the five year contract Dad came back, but my bitterness didn’t leave.  The frustration built up to such high intensity between us that my sisters started confronting me about it, “Kobus, Dad has changed so much since he left.  Why can’t you see the good things?”

I couldn’t believe they were taking his side.  I was the one who looked out for them when he wasn’t here. But… the fact of the matter is: I could not see Dad’s goodness, because I did not wish to see it.  I was still blinded by anger and hurt.

Every now and again the message of forgiveness comes out in our church.  “If we do not forgive others their trespasses against us, how can we expect God to forgive us our trespasses against Him, the Holy One?”  But how can I forgive someone who hasn’t even said they were sorry?  Well, since Jesus paid for my sins on the Cross even before I sinned and asked for forgiveness, I also need to forgive others before they ask forgiveness.

I repented of my bitterness and forgave my dad.

Slowly, but surely, my eyes were opened to his most admirable qualities: a hard worker, a servant of men, all the times he makes us coffee in the morning, the way the laughs and shouts when we enter the house, the way he regularly asks if I still have enough money for the month, the way he willingly offers to help even before I ask, the way he keeps on making plans in the midst of difficult situations, the way he humbly relates to his most stubborn business clients and focuses on delivering quality service to them, the way he loves my mom, the way he gives us the freedom to make our own mistakes and learn first-hand, the way he doesn’t force his opinion on his children, the way talks well of us, the way he says he loves us, the way he closes his ears to gossip stories and judges people favorably…

Dad, I admire you…

CONCLUSION

In this context I agree with Jeremiah and Paul who respectively said that “The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it” and “Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.”

My heart was deceived by believing my dad was evil.  This knowledge puffed me up so that I did not realise that for all this time… I was not an example of a good son.

This trap is set for both believers and skeptics.  The probable consequences for the skeptic, however, are more severe:

1. If there is no God, Jesus is not the Son of God and Christianity and judgment after death is a fluke, then both parties are neutral.  The believer and skeptic both lived their lives devoted to something they deemed worthwhile: following God’s purpose for your life and following your own purpose for your life.

However...

2. If there is a God, Jesus is the Son of God and Christianity and judgment after death is a reality, then only the believer benefits.  Heaven and hell are real places and we decide where we go depending on our acceptance or rejection of Jesus’ grace and payment for our sins.

When it comes to the Resurrection and deity of Jesus, the risk is greater for the skeptic.

I did not have criteria of what a good father is, and since I was offended by a past experience, I could not evaluate my father in the present.  From the Christian perspective, we believe we have a valid historical case for the deity and the Resurrection of Jesus.  I believe the playing field will be fairer if the skeptic also answers what he believes:

1. What is the purpose of life?
2. What happens after we die?
3. How do you evaluate your answers to these questions to conclude that they are feasible?

If life has no inherent meaning and purpose, what is the use of resisting evil in the world if it all amounts to nothing?  What is the use in resisting Christians in proclaiming their views if their views don’t have any effect on your afterlife?

Much love,

Kobus