knowledge and Belief in God

It is certainly harder for me to believe in the devil than it is for me to believe in God. I think this is the problem for many atheists and agnostics. Perhaps subliminally, they ignore the undeniable and universal experiences of God in the nature of things, and challenge me to prove that God exists. It seems strange to me, admittedly in the context of my training as a lawyer, that the atheists appear to have been granted the power to impose the burden of proof regarding God. Consider, for example, a basic component of nature that almost everyone agrees upon – gravity. Any knowledgeable scientist of today will agree that there are situations in nature in which all our equations and understanding of gravity do not work; in those situations, they could not satisfy any burden of proof that gravity exists. Nevertheless, we do not have “antigravityists” running around accusing Newton and Einstein of being superstitious idiots. We continue to cling to our belief in gravity just as the soles of our shoes continue to cling to the surface of earth; Hawking and the other best and brightest of scientists continue to postulate that there is a “theory of everything” which will, after all, prove that our experience of gravity is not the figment of anyone’s imagination. They are skeptical of the proof, the understanding, but have no doubt about their experience. The experience is tangible and real in their lives, beyond doubt even when the equations, explanations – “understanding” – the way we express the tangible and real experiences remain suspect.

I recently heard an ardent contemporary Christian philosopher, Peter Rollins, expound his strategy that he doubts God’s existence, but does his best to act as if there is a God in his day-to-day affairs. We might characterize the “doubt” as an observation about our equations, explanations, “understandings” of God, like the scientists who distrust the explanations of gravity. We walk around affixed to the ground, the planets orbit around the sun, and what we experience is tangible and real. It doesn’t make much sense, in my opinion, to surmise that we “doubt” gravity, but act as if gravity exists.

One might attack this analogy because we cannot think that there is any other way to act other than consistent with gravity. I would respond by asking: “How do we know when we are acting as if there is a God? and, “Where do we get the idea that we can act any other way?” Just as in the case of gravity, I would say that we (all people) call on a great deal of experience and history of experience, “laws” (like the “laws” of gravity) and other objective circumstances to educate our collective “beliefs” in God (like “beliefs” in gravity).

In the case of gravity, we expect that some brilliant scientist may well come up with new equations, theories or explanations that put our concept of “gravity” in some new context; on the other hand, we do not expect that this new “understanding” will have the result of people and things flying off the face of the earth willy-nilly. I believe that the same is true with respect to our belief in God, and the derivative understanding of the way we relate to God and nature, including the way we relate to each other.

Of course, Rollins is very well justified in aggressively challenging our understanding of God, and our articulation of God’s ways, just as the physicists have continually challenged our understanding of gravity, putting that understanding to test in all situations we can experience. However, I believe that this process is mischaracterized if it is considered as an attempt to “prove” God’s existence, which existence I think we all know just as surely as we know that gravity exists.

Perhaps I am dancing on the head of a pin. I think not. I believe that there is an important element of “knowing” past “understanding” or “belief” that is essential even as we are critical and challenging toward our articulations, underlying assumptions and understandings of the source of “understanding” and/or “belief.” Perhaps that element creates a level of confidence vs. cynicism, a level of hope vs. despair, and a level energy vs. the lethargy of depression, a level of meaning vs. nihilism.

Atheists often attack theists by emphasis on the way theists, often defined as “christians” in these dialogues, have acted in many of the atrocities of history – for example, wars, genocide, slavery -- and have adversely responded to the empirical findings and implications of modern science – for example, evolution, birth control, environmental protection. I cannot in good conscience, assert that my actions do not fundamentally indicate what I believe in. On the other hand, I would respond that people, including me, do not always act in conformance with beliefs, because my volition over my actions, and my beliefs (and “understanding”) are both admittedly imperfect. Nevertheless, I would assert that it is impossible or very improbable that we can act other than in conformance with what we know; when I screw up, I somehow inevitably know that I have screwed up; I somehow know that I need help in some fundamental way; I somehow know that the help is available in the nature of things. Thus, I instinctively get on my knees and reach out to God with an open heart and open palm. The atheist simply reacts to that same instinct in a different way – reaching out to God with palms facing outward.