Matt Jones' Random Acts of Verbiage

Best-selling Author Will ‘Prove’ God’s Existence: ABC to Air LIVE Atheist Debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (via Hot Air). I think this could be dangerous and unnecessary for a few reasons.

Firstly, God is not out to be proved. I think this requires a bit of qualification. I don’t think God can be proven. More qualification? In certain contexts, such as logical proofs, I think God can be proven (because you have to take certain axioms as true which will provide the necessary conditions for it to be so, this is not circular logic because the initial axioms can be debated as being “truthful”). I think the context most atheists speak of (and which I think this “debate” will also be focusing on) is more of a scientific proof which requires using the scientific method (which, according to Wikipedia, “is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning”). In this context, I don’t think God can be proven. I know this statement might make some Christians nervous, so let me again say what I mean: there is plenty of evidence to suggest that God exists, but the evidence could also be explained in other ways. Let me use an example: While in the beginning of my third year of my physics and astronomy program I was given a clear vision that I was to become a teacher (instead of pursuing graduate work in astronomy). I personally know this was guidance from God and no one is able to say otherwise. Externally, it could be explained that my decision to become a teacher is the result of numerous conditions and circumstances that pushed me in that direction. Similarly, independent pieces of evidence that Christians all over the globe can attest to work together to show that there is a God. But that is not proof. The scientific method is designed to test and refine theories in attempt to prove them, but “proof” of the religious nature is not repeatable. I cannot go back into the same circumstances I was in to see if I would be guided by God to become a teacher again. To me, the evidence for God is undeniable (and I have numerous posts to show that I really believe that), but just because God has been proven to me, doesn’t mean He has been scientifically proven.

Secondly, theologically speaking, God still cannot be proved. If God could have been proven, Jesus probably would have done that, and if not Jesus, the disciples or the early church. If God was able to be proven without a doubt, it removes our ability to choose. God wants us to accept His gift of salvation freely, if it was known to be a fact that He was there, we lose our freedom because He is the only option. The Bible never speaks of the necessity of proof, it speaks of the actions and the faith of God’s followers. Now, as suggested in the previous paragraph, I want to make it extremely clear that I don’t think this is a blind faith. There is plenty of reason behind faith, but it is faith none the less. And moreover, the Bible speaks of faith in a positive light and not something that we should be sad about “only” having; I don’t need certitude to be convinced (and any scientist should be completely on board with that because how often is something entirely certain?). Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Thirdly, I do not really see the debate as achieving anything. Now, I am actually not completely sold on that statement as it is entirely possible that the reasoning of Cameron and Comfort will endear many of the unbelieving watchers to Christendom. That being said, the atheist-Christian debate/argument has been going on ad nauseam and I cannot see these two fellows saying anything too radical or new that will demolish atheists’ unbelief. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think atheist arguments against God are persuasive, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t.

Here is the money quote from the article:

“Most people equate atheism with intellectualism,” Comfort added, “but it’s actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God’s existence is a matter of faith. It’s not, and I will prove it at the debate - once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.”

But I do think that God’s existence is a matter of faith; I also happen think that God has been proven to me. Being certain of God’s existence is never required of me, faith in his redemptive work is what is asked of me. Again, being convinced does not require certitude (any Christian that is certain about every aspect of God is not being honest).

I am also worried that there will be a perception that Christians try to equate religious belief and science, I know I don’t. Science and religion are looking at fundamentally different issues: how vs. why. I have spoken on various aspects of this in other places (see especially Creation Science and Science vs. Religion). It seems that so many folks that are out to prove God feel they have to do so by trashing some scientific theories: if it isn’t evolution, it is the big bang; if not fossil records, it is stellar evolution. Why don’t they leave those things alone and let God speak for himself, he doesn’t need our defense. Is their faith so weak that they see any scientific theory that they perceive to be anti-God/Bible that they must attack it? Sometimes their critiques of the science are valid and will, in fact, help science progress, sometimes they are not and primarily based on either sentiment or poor (or at least not completely accurate) interpretations of scripture. This is obviously a huge issue that I will not flush out here, but I am just worried that many of the people (sometimes myself included) are more worried about proving that God exists than they are about following God’s commands, living in grace and mercy, loving their neighbor, caring for the needy, or having concern for social justice (among many other issues). Being passionate about science, I do love to see how God works in those fields, but I am not going to be too worried if some scientific theory may conflict with some of my beliefs.

Finally I do want to address something that may or may not be touched upon in the debate. Comfort and Cameron will be having the debate with the two originators of “The Blasphemy Challenge” which has people (including kids) posting videos with these instructions:

You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: “I deny the Holy Spirit.”

I find this repulsive. Even if we want to give God’s grace a wide berth and say that the folks that participate in the “challenge” will be given other chance, it is still disgusting that the “Rational Response Squad” would put people in that situation. I won’t really discuss this more than the brief mention because I think that John Stackhouse’s post The Blasphemy Challenge does a much better job than I ever could. My point in bringing this up is to ask a question: why would Comfort and Cameron want to enter into debate with the two guys that started this project? I find their lack of concern for others distasteful and inappropriate and therefore not worthy of being part of any sort of civilized debate. There are plenty of atheists that would be up to the task that are not so repulsive that Comfort and Cameron could have choosen.

I feel like I have rambled and strayed all over the place… I hope what I am saying makes some sense. It will be an interesting debate I have no doubt, but I have a feeling it will make as big an impact as The Lost Tomb of Jesus did.

It is late so if anyone needs me to clarify and restate anything, let me know. I don’t intend to be heretical. And does anyone else still just see Cameron as Mike from Growing Pains? He is still just a doofus to me! I know that isn’t fair of me, but come on!

UPDATE: I wasn’t able to see the debate but Amanda has helpfully pointed to YouTube for some help (I can make no guarantee how long they will be there): Part 1 - Part 2a - Part 2b - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Part 9 - Part 10 - Part 11 - Part 12 - Part 13 - Part 14 - Part 15 - Part 16 - Part 17 - Part 18

I have posted my thoughts here: A Response to the “Proof of God” Debate.