Two Sources of the Knowledge
of God
by Prof. Robert C. Koons (University of Texas at Austin)
Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, wrote, "Philosophy begins with a sense
of wonder," and concluded that we cannot be satisfied until we have
attained knowledge of the highest things. The mathematician Blaise Pascal
claimed: "there is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every human
being," and the French existentialist Albert Camus wrote, "There is
only one really serious philosophical problem, that of suicide. To judge that
life is or is not worth the trouble of being lived, this is to reply to the
fundamental question of philosophy."1 Although Aristotle, Pascal and Camus represent very
different points of view, their remarks point to the same basic human characteristic:
we seek more than food, drink, and warmth to make us happy. Instead, we want
answers to questions about the meaning of life. When we ask "Who am
I?", "What is my purpose?", "Is there a God?", and
"If so, what is God like?" or "What does God have to do with me
or my purpose?" we tip our hand: each of us is on a quest to make sense
out of the fragmentary pieces of our existence.2 However, in today's world, with so many voices offering
conflicting answers to these questions, we are in constant danger of slipping
into a deep pessimism about the very possibility of reaching real truth.
When we go about the task of making sense out of life, we always rely on a set
of beliefs that we already hold. These beliefs act as a grid or filter: they
help us figure out which experiences are more meaningful, important, or
relevant than others. These basic beliefs, even if we are not consciously aware
of them, are among the most important things about us. They determine which
questions we will ask, and which answers to these questions we will consider.
In this essay, I will present a two-part method for use in evaluating and
revising one's own basic beliefs, and I will apply that method to the
evaluation of one particular belief system -- that of historic Christianity. I
will argue that, when we make use of all the available sources of information,
it is reasonable to conclude that Christianity is uniquely true.
Knowledge through Inference to the Best
Explanation
If we are to escape intellectual despair, we must find some source of knowledge
that is widely shared and on which we can base our judgments. One time-honored
and widely cited source is called "inductive inference". An inference
is a step or process of reasoning. In deductive inference, we make explicit
what is already contained implicitly in our current stock of information. For
example, if I know that all lawyers are overpaid, and that Paul is a lawyer, I
can infer deductively that Paul must be overpaid. In contrast, inductive
inference involves taking a step beyond what is contained in the data at hand.
By inductive inference the mind is able to
discern patterns in experience and use those patterns to form reasonable
conjectures about unseen or not-yet-seen parts of the world.
Inductive inference often consists in discovering the underlying causes beneath
the observed effects, e.g., gravity as the cause of falling apples and orbiting
planets, germs as the cause of disease, money creation as the cause of
inflation, etc.3 This
process is sometimes called the "inference to the best explanation."
We conclude that a certain structure or entity really exists when the
hypothesis that it does exist provides the best possible explanation for what
we observe. For example, forensic scientists examine the evidence at the scene
of a possible crime and then try to reconstruct the most plausible scenario --
including the time and manner of the crime, and characteristics of the
assailant -- that can best account for all of the evidence. We humans have a
natural disposition to push this process further and further, seeking the most
fundamental and universal of all causes. Physicists, for example, conjecture
that the entire observable universe is the effect of a catastrophic Big Bang
event 18-20 billion years
ago.4
As the process of discovery is pushed to its extreme limit, we find ourselves
searching for the uncaused "First Cause" of all observed phenomena,
the ultimate source of reality. From the time of the ancient Greeks until today5, and in many different
cultures (Greek, Roman, Hebrew, Islamic, Christian and Hindu), scientists,
philosophers and many others have found good reason to infer the existence of a
necessary, eternal Being from which everything that is fleeting and tangible
derives its existence.
We can try to infer additional characteristics of the First Cause by examining
its effect, namely, the observable universe. For example, scientists have
uncovered more and more evidence in recent years that the fundamental constants
of physics and the basic features of the universe
have been "fine-tuned" to make life possible. This apparent
fine-tuning of these physical quantities gives support to the supposition that
the First Cause is intelligent and purposeful, and that we ourselves (as
intelligent, social creatures) are the intentional creation of this cosmic
designer6. Moreover,
recent work on information theory and the origin of life lends further support
to the belief that such an intelligent designer was involved at some point or
other in the history of our planet7.
This idea is reinforced by the testimony of religious experience throughout the
various human societies, nearly all of which report an awareness of a Being,
which is the ultimate foundation of our existence, and which demands worship,
devotion, and ethical perfection8.
In addition,
philosophers from Plato to John Locke to C. S. Lewis have seen the
unconditional and absolute nature of the moral law as evidence of a supreme
judge or lawgiver9.
To sum up: many leading scientists and philosophers are finding it increasingly
difficult to escape the conclusion that there is an uncaused First Cause, a
being that is eternal and necessary, and one that intelligently pursues
purposes involving our own existence here on earth10.
Such a being has (in the Western tradition) been named “God”.
However, there are two important limitations or qualifications to this use of
inductive inference to establish the existence and nature of God. First, not
everyone finds these inferences compelling. Many people draw contrary
conclusions from the same evidence, and there is no universally agreed-upon
method for settling this dispute. It appears that, at least in the real world,
in which people bear so many biases and prejudices, the inductive method is not
perfectly reliable. We need, therefore, an independent source of information
about the existence and character of the ultimate reality, one that could
corroborate or correct our tentative conclusions
based on inductive inference alone.
Second, the inductive method leaves a number of vitally important questions
unanswered. For instance, even if we conclude that God does exist, we would
still want to know the answers to questions such as: "What does God expect
of us? What does God think of us? Does God wish to enter into a more personal relationship
with each of us, and if so, how? What, if anything, does God intend to do about
our fate after death?" It would be nearly impossible for us to base any
specific answer to these personal or existential questions merely upon general
features of the universe around us.
Divine Revelation in History: a
complementary source
In order for us to gain adequate answers to these existential questions about the "supernatural" realm, God must break into the natural realm and reveal the answers to us, using meaningful historical events and inspired messages. This is called "special" or "historical" revelation, in contrast to the so-called "general revelation" of God in nature and in the structure of human consciousness. If such special revelation exists, then it promises to be a useful complement to unaided inductive inference for the construction of a belief system.
Many religions claim to possess divine revelation which best
answers questions like "Who am I?" and "What is my
purpose?" Although there are some common elements present in all of the
major religions that claim to be based in divine revelation (for instance, the
ethical teachings of all tend to uphold the value of love, justice and
compassion), there remain many points of irreconcilable difference. For
example, in the Christian tradition, Jesus claims to be (and is acknowledged by
his followers to be) the unique God-Man, the divine creator in the form of a
human being. This claim is flatly contradicted by many prophets of other
religions, some of
whom insist that no human being can be worthy of worship, and others of whom
claim that we are all equally divine. The claim that Jesus is uniquely
God-in-human-form is without exact parallel in other world religions. The fact
that such a claim was made about and presumably by
Jesus sets him apart from every other respected prophet, teacher, and guru in
history.
Revelation's problem is credibility
If the problems with inductive inference are reliability and existential
adequacy, the problem with revelation is that of credibility. The fact of the
matter is that biblical manuscripts are not the only documents which purport to
disclose the mind of God. How are we to tell whether or not the Bible and the
Jesus portrayed therein is the revelation of God?
We are not left entirely adrift. The competing sources of divine revelation
championed by major religions, including the Bible or the Koran or the Book of
Mormon, have included claims regarding 1) the supernatural foresight of its
sacred writers (prophecy), 2) the extraordinary life, words and deeds of its
founder (wonders), and 3) the transforming influence of the religion
on the lives of real people (impact).
These three criteria, then, determine what shape an investigation into the
credibility of Christianity must take. In such an inquiry, we would have to
account for the following features. First, the biblical documents offer
numerous specific prophecies concerning Jesus' life which predate his birth by
over a century11.
Second, the disappearance of Jesus' body three days after his crucifixion was
publicly hailed as a case of resurrection (i.e., of rising from the dead) and
apparently attested to by five hundred eyewitnesses12. Third, the lives of Jesus' followers appear to have
been dramatically changed; those who had fled his crucifixion became martyrs
for his cause.
If Christianity emerges as a clear winner over other rival claimants, then we
are on solid ground in believing that its sacred texts offer an objective
reference point which circumvents the threat of intellectual despair and points
toward the possibility of truly knowing God.
Conclusion
We have seen that constructing a system of beliefs is a task which would profit
from using both inductive inference and historical revelation as means of knowing
God. These two methods are not mutually exclusive but complementary. We owe it
to ourselves to use the best means available for gaining knowledge about God,
ourselves, and our place in the universe. However, as we use these methods we
must face two facts. First, inductive inference is inherently limited as a
means for discovering answers to all of our existential questions. Second,
because there is more than one religious tradition which claims to embody the
divine revelation, some means of discernment between them must be implemented.
It seems reasonable that a revelation worthy of contributing to our
understanding of God must first demonstrate its credibility through fulfilled
prophecy, credible miracles, widespread impact, and the unique identity and authority
of its
originator.
A full defense for the rationality of the Christian revelation cannot be
undertaken in this brief essay, but other papers explore this topic more fully.
Among these are "Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical evidence for
the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" by Dr. William Lane Craig (Universite
Catholique de Louvain) which can be obtained at the Meekness
and Truth web site: www.meeknessandtruth.org.
-------------------------------------
1 Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book Alpha, 982b10--983a10. Blaise Pascal, Pensees.
Albert Camus, Le mythe de Sisyphe, as cited in Frederick Copleston, A History
of Philosophy
(New York:Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.,
1985) IX: 392.
2 William P Alston, "Problems of Philosophy of Religion," in
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, reprint ed. (New York; Macmillan, 1967; 1972) 6:
286
3 Paul Humphreys, The Chances of Explanation (Princeton, 1989); Philip Kitcher,
"Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World," in
Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, XIII, ed. by P. Kitcher &
W. Salmon (Univ. of Minnesota, 1990), pp. 410-506.
4 Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (Warner Books, 1978); Stephen
Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam, 1988). For a debate on the religious
implications of the Big Bang, see William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism,
Atheism, and the Big Bang (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993).
5 For supporters of this argument, see: Mortimer Adler, How to Think about God
(Macmillan, 1980); William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Barnes
& Noble, 1979); Richard Taylor, Metaphysics (Prentice Hall, 1963), Chapter
7; Robert C. Koons, "A New Look at the Cosmological Argument,"
American Philosophical Quarterly 34, April 1997, pp. 193-211. For objections,
see: William Rowe, The Cosmological Argument (Princeton, 1975); J. L. Mackie,
The Miracle of Theism (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982), Chapter 5.
6 This is the so-called "Anthropic Cosmological Principle". In some
cases the tuning is so fine that a variation from the actual values as small as
1 part out of 10 to the 300th power spoils the capacity of the universe to
house complex organic molecules. Paul Davies, The Mind of God (Simon &
Schuster, 1992); Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God (Promise Publishing, 1991);
M. A. Corey, God and the New Cosmology (Rowman and Littlefield, 1993); John D.
Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford
University, 1986). For a balanced treatment of the implications of the
anthropic coincidences, see John Leslie, Universes
(Routledge, London, 1989).
7 Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life's
Origin (Lewis & Stanley, 1984); Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (Free
Press, 1996); Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology
(Cambridge University Press, 1992). For the other side, see Richard Dawkins,
The Blind Watchmaker (W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), and Daniel
Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Simon & Schuster, 1995).
8 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy (Oxford University, 1958); Huston Smith,
The World's Religions; R. C. Zaehner, Concordant Discord (Clarendon Press,
1970).
9 Plato, The Laws, Book Ten, 903-908; John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding, Book II, Chapter 28; C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Part I. See
also, Robert M. Adams, The Virtue of Faith (Oxford University Press, 1987), Ch.
10, and Paul Chamberlain, Can We be Good without God? (Intervarsity Press,
1996). For an opposing viewpoint, see J. L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and
Wrong (Penguin, 1977).
10 See Jastrow, Adler, and Davies, op cit.
11 Depending upon one's criteria for identifying prophetic statements, the
count of messianic prophecies ranges from as many as 300 to as few as 60. Even
the lower limit puts the probability of the chance fulfillment of all of the
prophecies into the realm of the vanishingly small. The possibility that
predictions might have been fabricated post factum, based upon Jesus' actual
life situation, appears entirely excluded on the grounds that all prophetic
statements were contained in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures, which by Jesus' birth had already been extant for over 100 years.
Cf. F . L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of The Christian Church, second ed.
(New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1974), s.v. "Septuagint." 12I
Corinthians 15:3-8.
Copyright © 2001-2004
Meekness and Truth Ministries, all rights reserved.
* These materials however may
be used by other Christians for ministry purposes, but not for financial
profit.