Must one believe in God on the basis of reasons, arguments, proofs etc.

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I tend at times towards fideism, ie just believing in God without valid reasons, something like what Francis Schaeffer described as an "upper story" leap. If one "just believes" does it not end up in subjectivity - or faith in faith if one has no reasons for believing? However postmodernism and the idea there is no objective truth or reality also dogs my thinking.

Kierkegarrd is probably best known for fideism - and rejecting proofs of God existence. "I reason from existence, not towards existence."

Søren Kierkegaard, "God's Existence Cannot Be Proved"

Pascal also proposed his famous wager - that if one believes in God and lives accordingly and it turns out God does exist one gains eternal life - and if he doesn't one hasn't lost anything - but if one disbelives and lives for oneself - and it turns out God is real - one loses everything, ends up in hell - something like that if I recall it correctly.

Kant as far as I understand ended in agnosticism as regards knowledge of God by pure reason. He seems to however have regarded God as a necessary postulate of practical reason.

What path is there back from postmodernism, or (if that is the wrong term) a rejection of objective truth and reality - back to reality - this has really dogged me for years - I had a breakdown some years ago because of the whole question of reality and how it seemed the world was completely absurd. How does one connect with reality? If the world seems completely absurd how does one live? I can see how if one doesn't believe in God one could come to the conclusion of absurdism - and that belief in God would keep one from reaching that point - but what if through not believing you reach that point of thinking everything is absurd - how does one get back from that place?

It depends on what you mean. Giving a reason does not necessarily mean giving a deductive argument, though it can mean that. Any formal system of thought must start with a set of axioms and rules. Why can't it be that the existence of God is just axiomatic to the system in some way? In that case, a deductive proof is not required, but its the reverse - God as the axiom is required for the system.

In some philosophical circles (namely, "foundationalism"), there is a set of beliefs that is considered "properly basic," which is required as an assumption for other beliefs. These foundational beliefs typically must be assumed and cannot be provided with further evidence for their truth - ie, they are typically considered self-evidently true, or something like that. Properly basic beliefs include things like the belief in an external world, the belief in other minds, belief in the uniformity of nature, belief in mathematical relationships, belief in the reliability of our senses and cognitive faculties, etc.. Some Christian philosophers (eg, Plantinga and Craig) would consider belief in God to be a properly basic belief. Plantinga makes the analogy that believing in God is analogous to believing in the existence of other minds; a sort of analogical argument.

Some reformed apologists make similar arguments about "presuppositions" (eg, Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame), though undoubtedly a Calvinist will show up now and tell me how different those are from Plantinga (but I think they aren't all that different).

In any case, most of the traditional theistic arguments fall short of the desired conclusion for various reaons, imo.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure what my basic worldview is. I think at one time I held to some form of rationalism, and then tended towards nihilism and pessismism, what Francis Schaeffer would describe as living below the Line of Despair. Also I may have accepted some sort of Hegelianism at one point. But I am not sure where I am at now - maybe post-modernism or neo-gnosticism, or maybe Barthianism / Neoorthodoxy ? Christian Faith would seem to be a matter of the heart - rather than merely subscription or assent to the tenets of a christian worldview?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
In answer to your OP and this point.

I would start with simply reading the Gospel accounts of Jesus and deciding what you think of him.

History has a way of bringing reality back.

Then decide on the historicity of the resurrection. The resurrection is the real turning point. If Jesus was raised, it really does change everything.

Faith in Jesus means trusting Him, the person. Thats more than just believing He exists or believing facts or ideas but going beyond that and saying, "He's alive and I can trust Him now, personally."

It's a trusting for everything - trust Him to ground you in reality, trust Him to ultimately save you ("salvation" is a large concept that could be described as "putting everything right").

Its interesting you mention History because I was very interested in Barth earlier in life - I fact I think I maybe became a Barthian to some extent so maybe that is my difficulty?

I have just been reading Helmut Thielicke - Modern Faith and Thought - he has a good section on Barth as a theologian influenced by Hegel. I'd like to understand better how Barth differs from other theology eg Reformed or older orthodoxy. I would have to quote a lot perhaps for one to follow his explanation of Barth's theology but briefly he says:

"many of the principles of Barth's doctrine of God trigger associations with Hegel's concept of the absolute spirit... the only nuance - which is meant to be theologically significant but which seems to me to be very tiny - is that the necessity of self-development is not deduced (as in Hegel) from the nature of the spirit but from the nature of God as God has freely resolved upon this, namely, to be the gracious God. Under this new sign of a free resolve, however, the event of salvation develops with necessity. Even the story of Christ loses its historical contingency and becomes the mere executing of the original resolve."

"...the event of salvation itself - the Christ event as well as my own incorporation in the event of redemption - is dehistoricised in the same way as in Hegel. It becomes merely an unfolding and executing of what God has foreordained before all time. It is not a new thing - there is no NT - but simply the actualizing of a divine habitus (if one might put it thus) that God has chosen for himself in the freedom of his original resolve."
There is loads more I could quote and Thielicke seems to understand Barth pretty well - as I said i'd like to understand better for comparison how Barth differs from older orthodoxy. I am pretty sure some of my difficulties are related to my embracing Barthianism.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Further in regard to Barth's theology I found this in Makers of the modern theological mind: Karl Barth

"Although we have seen that Barth attempted to contrast the biblical view of the living God with a static conception of God characteristic of the Greek tradition, Moltmann and others find Barth still too addicted to Greek categories. Therefore they see a tendency in Barth to interpret God's revelation of himself too much in terms of the idea of the eternal present in time, and of the correspondence between man and God which this makes possible, instead of understanding revelation "from the standpoint of the promise contained in the revelation."​
 
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Christian Faith would seem to be a matter of the heart - rather than merely subscription or assent to the tenets of a christian worldview?
Why not both?

I mean, it obviously has to start at the heart, but not just end at the heart, otherwise it can run the risk of being merely sentimental.

The worldview is a working out of what the change in the heart means. Sometimes the outworking is very different to others, but that's all part of the discovery and journey of life.

I've read a bit of Barth, and read a lot about him, and he is notoriously difficult as he gets tremendously detailed and often deals in categories most of us aren't exposed to.

With Barth it starts with defining what the Word of God is, which for him is not the Bible but is the revelation that comes when it is proclaimed by the living voice of the church. More specifically, the Word of God is the written witness in scripture, the proclamation of Jesus, and Jesus Himself.

I'm not sure if he "de-historicises" things then by at least implying that the written witness doesn't carry any meaning for the here-and-now without the proclamation of the here-and-now to the person. I could see how this could lead to the historical event being much less important than what I proposed, but in this sense I suppose I would disagree with him.

I think his view on the Word of God comes close to Luther's, which I agree on (the Word is the gospel of Jesus, not the Bible directly) but I don't think it's exactly the same. Luther, and I, agree on the fact that this Word must be proclaimed, but Luther would say the gospel has intrinsic power of its own and does not require faith to be powerful, only faith to be entered into. I would go with that, personally.

Given Barth's rejection of a sacramental view, I could see how it could differ from Luther's.

All that to say that I think at some point the historical witness is absolutely key, as it does ground it in reality and brings objective power, rather than a subjective revelation (that may or may not be true but can't be tested).
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Doesn't one have to make a choice to begin mentally with God or an idea of God without reasons for believing in His existence? It seems to me it can be just a choice or a leap of faith - like in Francis's Schaeffer's illustration of the climbers on a mountain in the Alps (see below) - if they stay exposed they will die but maybe there is a ledge ten feet down - there is no way of knowing so they can either stay exposed or just hang and drop with no knowledge - Schaeffer doesn't agree with that, he says its faith in faith.

But if one begins from agnosticism - ie. believes there is no way to know of God's existence, then one has to take this approach surely? Schaeffer says an alternative is if one heard someone shouting from a nearby ridge telling you there is a ledge one can drop down to and find shelter till morning - that is a whole different ball game - he says he would ask the person questions to ascertain if they know what they are talking about - he say he would ask their name - because there are mountain families who live in the Alps and have knowledge of the terrain.

Suppose we are climbing in the Alps and are very high on the bare rock, when suddenly the fog rolls in. The guide turns to us and says that the ice is forming and that there is no hope; before morning we will all freeze to death here on the shoulder of the mountain. Simply to keep warm the guide keeps us moving in the dense fog further and further out on the shoulder until none of us have any idea where we are. After an hour or so, someone says to the guide, “Suppose I dropped and hit a ledge ten feet down in the fog. What would happen then?” The guide would say that you might make it until the morning and thus live. So, with absolutely no knowledge or any reason to support his action, one of the group hangs and drops into the fog. This would be one kind of a leap of faith.

But suppose, however, that after we have worked out on the shoulder in the midst of the fog and the growing ice on the rock, we had stopped and we heard a voice which said, “You cannot see me, but I know exactly where you are from your voices. I am on another ridge. I have lived in these mountains, man and boy, for over sixty years and I know every foot of them. I assure you that ten feet below you there is a ledge. If you hang and drop, you can make it through the night and I will get you in the morning.

I would not hang and drop at once, but would ask questions to try to ascertain if the man knew what he was talking about. In the Alps, for example, I would ask him his name. If the name he gave me was the name of a family from that part of the mountains, it would count a great deal to me. In the Swiss Alps there are certain family names that indicate mountain families of that area. In my desperate situation, even though time would be running out, I would ask him what to me would be the adequate and sufficient questions, and only when I became convinced by his answers, then I would hang and drop.

I would like to understand how this corresponds to christianity, ie. what does the voice represent?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Doesn't one have to make a choice to begin mentally with God without reasons for believing in His existence? It seems to me it can be just a choice or a leap of faith - like in Francis's Schaeffer's illustration of the climbers on a mountain in the Alps (see below) - if they stay exposed they will die but maybe there is a ledge ten feet down - there is no way of knowing so they can either stay exposed or just hang and drop with no knowledge - Schaeffer doesn't agree with that, he says its faith in faith.

I wouldn't say its a leap of faith in the way described. Any worldview, any model of reality, must begin with a set of assumptions and methodological rules. The question becomes if those assumptions are reasonable, but it will be impossible to supply evidentiary, deductive reasons for the entire set of assumptions without reasoning in a circular pattern. At some level, there will be assumptions that must be taken as a given - as axiomatic to the system.

This happens in math, for example. Mathematical systems and analysis always begin with assumptions, a set of methodological rules and from there derive theorems. Any model that is supposed to describe or reflect reality will end up having to do likewise. In my estimation, taking God's existence as axiomatic to the entire worldview-system is as reasonable as axiomatically believing that there are other minds in the real word (rather than robots or something that just look like real people).
 
Upvote 0