[warning – this is long: over 4k words]<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/span><\/p>\n Theists \u2013 particularly Christians \u2013 often appeal to \u201cfaith\u201d. Here are three fairly typical examples:<\/p>\n \u2022 Theists regularly say \u201cBut belief in the existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith, not reason\u201d, when confronted by someone demanding to know whether they can muster a cogent argument in support or defence of their belief. In this paper, I question whether these appeals to faith are as legitimate as they might first appear. Let\u2019s begin by looking at reasonable belief. Often, when you believe something with reason, you possess good grounds for supposing your belief is true.<\/p>\n Take, for example, my belief that there is a tree outside my office. I can\u2019t now see the tree, but I am certainly justified in supposing it\u2019s there. I saw it only a minute ago. It\u2019s always been there whenever I have entered my office. And there\u2019s no reason at all to suppose that someone has somehow managed silently to remove it while I have been sitting here. So I\u2019m justified in believing the tree is still there.<\/p>\n Surely, I\u2019m also justified in believing that Japan exists, despite the fact that I have never been there myself. I have seen innumerable TV programs about Japan, I have met people who claim to be from Japan and who all speak with that characteristic accent. And I have seen countless maps on which Japan clearly appears. Some of my relatives even claim to have been there. So, again, I have excellent reason to suppose Japan exists.<\/p>\n I\u2019m also justified in believing that the battle of Hastings took place in 1066. I have read about the battle in a number of books written by reputable authors, so I have pretty good reason to suppose it\u2019s true. Maybe this belief of mine isn\u2019t quite as well confirmed as my belief that Japan exists. After all, historians can and do make big mistakes. But it is, nevertheless, a pretty reasonable thing for me to believe.<\/p>\n Of course, while I\u2019m justified in holding these beliefs \u2013 while I have good reason to hold them \u2013 it\u2019s possible I\u2019m mistaken. Most if not all our beliefs about the world are open to at least some doubt. Even my belief that Japan exists. It\u2019s just possible that there has been some huge and elaborate conspiracy to dupe me into thinking Japan exists when in fact it doesn\u2019t. Perhaps my whole life has been controlled by forces intent on deceiving me about what\u2019s really going on, as in the film The Truman Show (in which Truman, the character played by Jim Carey, discovers that his entire life has been contrived as part of a TV soap opera). The point is that, though it could turn out to be true that Japan doesn\u2019t exist, it\u2019s very unlikely that it doesn\u2019t exist. The reasonable thing for me to believe is that it does. For I have powerful evidence that it does, and hardly any evidence to suggest that it doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n Reasonableness comes in degrees<\/span><\/p>\n Note that reasonableness comes in degrees. Beliefs can be more, or less, reasonable. My belief that Japan exists is very reasonable indeed. So too are my beliefs that the Earth revolves around the sun, that Elvis Presley is dead, and that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. Other beliefs lie in the middle range: there is some reason to suppose they are true, but perhaps not enough to warrant belief. For example, there is some reason to believe that there is life on other planets: we know there are millions of other solar systems many of which would be capable of producing and sustaining life. It\u2019s not wholly unreasonable to suppose that life has evolved elsewhere. But perhaps there isn\u2019t sufficient evidence to justify belief in extra-terrestrial life.<\/p>\n Towards the bottom of the scale there lie beliefs for which there is very little supporting evidence and indeed considerable evidence against. The beliefs the Elvis is alive and well, that fairies exist, and that the world is run by a secret cabal of Martian imposters all fall into this category (despite what you might read on some internet sites). So there is a scale of reasonableness: beliefs can be more or less reasonable, given the evidence. To qualify as a reasonable belief, a belief must at least fall within the top half of the scale.<\/p>\n Now where on this scale does belief in God lie, do you suppose? Does it feature down at the \u201cFairies exist\u201d end of the spectrum? Does it lie somewhere in the middle, along with belief in extra-terrestrials? Or is towards the top of the scale, perhaps as high as my belief that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066, or even as high as my belief that Japan exists? Take a moment to think about it: where would you place belief in God?<\/p>\n My guess is that most people who believe in God consider their belief to be pretty reasonable, that\u2019s to say, at least as reasonable as belief in extra-terrestrial life, and perhaps even as reasonable as my belief that the battle of Hastings took place in 1066. Certainly, that\u2019s what most of the Christians that I have asked have said. Not one has ever suggested that belief in God is no more reasonable than is, say, belief in fairies. They\u2019re always confident that belief in God is fairly high up there on the scale of reasonableness.<\/p>\n Arguments for the existence of God<\/span><\/p>\n But are they right? Is belief in God reasonable?<\/p>\n There are all sorts of reasons why you might suppose it is. Here are a few:<\/p>\n \u2022 Millions of people believe in God. They can\u2019t all be wrong, can they? These are some of the most popular arguments for God\u2019s existence. Of course, the majority Christians are happy to accept that these arguments don\u2019t conclusively prove that God exists. There is, they will admit, room for doubt about whether there\u2019s a God. Nevertheless, you might think that these arguments provide us with pretty good grounds for believing in God, grounds sufficient to make belief in God reasonable.<\/p>\n But do they? Personally, I don\u2019t think they do. Any good introduction to the philosophy of religion will explain why most if not all of these arguments are, at least as they stand, fatally flawed. By saying that the arguments are fatally flawed, I mean not that, while the arguments do provide good grounds for believing in God, these grounds fall short of being conclusive. Rather, I mean that these arguments actually provide us with very little, if any, reason to suppose that God exists.<\/p>\n The problem of evil<\/span><\/p>\n That there\u2019s little reason to suppose God exists is bad enough. But the situation for theism is, rationally speaking, actually far worse then that. There is also a powerful argument against the existence of God, the argument raised by the problem of evil. It runs as follows.<\/p>\n God, according to Christians, Jews and Muslims, is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. These are defining attributes of God. If God exists, He must possess all three. A being with only two would not qualify as \u201cGod\u201d, as Christians, Jews and Muslims understand the term.<\/p>\n Now, there is a great deal of pain and suffering in the world, much of it natural in origin. Yes, God, if He exists, made \u201call things bright and beautiful\u201d. But let\u2019s not forget that He also made cancer, earthquakes, famine, the Black Death and haemorrhoids. By such means God inflicts great pain and misery on His children. And not just on we humans. Anyone who has watched a few of David Attenborough’s TV programmes about natural history will no that, for very many of the sentient creatures with which we share this planet, life is horrifically – indeed, almost unimaginably – cruel. And this sort of extreme cruelty has been unleashed on a daily basis over many hundreds of millions of years – long before we humans made our recent appearance on the planet.<\/p>\n It seems that, if the universe does have a creator (and let\u2019s just suppose, for the sake of argument, that it does \u2013 though even this is highly doubtful) then either He doesn\u2019t know about this appalling suffering, in which case he\u2019s not all-knowing, or He is unable to prevent it, in which case He\u2019s not all-powerful, or else He doesn\u2019t much care about the agony he inflicts on sentient beings, in which case He is not supremely benevolent. Either way, the creator is not the Christian\/Jewish\/Muslim God, who, by definition, has all three attributes.<\/p>\n Direct religious experience of God<\/span><\/p>\n Some theists maintain, perhaps correctly, that a belief can be reasonable even if not supported by argument or evidence.<\/p>\n Take my belief that there\u2019s an orange on the table in front of me. I don\u2019t infer<\/span> that there orange is there on the basis<\/span> of evidence<\/span>. I can just directly see<\/span> it there. That makes my belief reasonable, despite the fact that it is not supported by argument or evidence<\/span>.<\/p>\n Might I not, in the same way, have direct experience of God? If I am lucky enough to have such an experience, might it not then similarly be reasonable for me to believe, despite the fact that I cannot muster a cogent argument or evidence in support of my belief?<\/p>\n This sort of move faces on obvious objection, however. We know that many people have such apparently revelatory religious experiences. However, these experiences differ dramatically in terms of what they seem to reveal – indeed, they contradict<\/span> each other.<\/p>\n Thus many of these experiences must be at least partly deceptive. We also have powerful evidence \u2013 in the form of the problem of evil \u2013 that there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.<\/p>\n How, then, can it be reasonable for someone in possession of both (i) this information about the unreliability of such experiences and (ii) powerful evidence (provided by the problem of evil) that what they seem to experience doesn’t actually exist, to suppose that their own experience is reliable guide to reality?<\/p>\n
\u2022 Theists sometimes also insist that theism and atheism are both \u201cfaith positions\u201d, and so equally rational\/irrational.
\u2022 And theists are fond of suggesting that, just as it\u2019s a positive thing to place your faith in those around you (otherwise life would be impossible), so it must also be positive to place your faith in God.<\/p>\n
Reasonable belief<\/span><\/p>\n
\u2022 Many claim to have experienced God directly, though a revelatory experience. Surely at least some of these experiences must be reliable?
\u2022 There are many religious miracles, miracles that could not have happened if God did not exist.
\u2022 Jesus tells us that God exists, and we know Jesus to be a reliable source of information. Therefore it\u2019s likely that God exists.
\u2022 The universe shows signs of having been designed. So God must exist as its designer.
\u2022 Where did the universe come from? Why did the Big Bang occur? Things don\u2019t just happen, do they? There\u2019s always a cause, an explanation. But then the Big Bang must have a cause and explanation. And by far the best explanation is that the universe was created by God.<\/p>\n