Do We have to have Evidence for Our Belief in God to be Rational?

IS BELIEF IN GOD IRRATIONAL IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICENT EVIDENCE? The above question is not whether belief in God is true or false, but it is a question of whether it is rational to believe in the existence of God in the absence of sufficient evidence. There is a significant difference between the two. Following the information provided by a weather channel over the radio, one may believe a proposition that “It will rain tonight.” Even though adequate and convincing evidence were provided by the weather channel, it may or may not rain. One’s belief in this proposition would be considered true only if it rains. Whether or not it rains, however, one would be considered to have believed in the above proposition justifiably or rationally since one had sufficient evidence for the proposition that “It will rain tonight.” In this particular case, the evidence supplied by the weather channel justified the belief as rational. Evidence and reasons may or may not lead to a true belief but they justify the rationality of a belief according to this single instance. However, is evidence necessary to justify belief in God? What if there isn’t convincing and sufficient evidence at all? Some philosophers believe that supporting evidence is necessary for belief in God to be rational. This philosophical position is termed as “evidentialism”. Dr. Daniel M. Mittage, in his article on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defined evidentialism as a theory of epistemology that states a “Person S is justified in believing proposition p at time t if and only if S’s evidence for p at t supports believing p.” Therefore, according to evidentialism, even belief in God is irrational unless there are supporting arguments for it. As a result, the theist has to back his belief with substantial evidence to be a rational believer. Evidentialists themselves do not agree on the rationality of belief in God even though they agree on the necessity of evidence for rationality. Arguing that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of God, some evidentialists concluded that belief in the existence of God is irrational. This group of evidentialists is called “antitheist evidentialists”. The others, on the other side however believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify the rationality of belief in God. They are called “theistic evidentialists”. These theistic evidentialists, therefore, without depending on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) attempt to argue the existence of God from the existence of the world and natural laws. The fact that evidence justifies reasonableness of a belief is not deniable. However, as will be discussed later in this paper, not all reasonable beliefs are substantiated with evidence. Likewise, sufficient evidence for God’s existence (if there are) justify belief in God. However, not everyone believes in the presence of evidence that prove the existence of God. If, in fact there had been sufficient evidence for the belief under discussion, the rationality of faith would be palpable and no further discussion would have been necessary. However, not everyone believes there is sufficient evidence or proof for the existence of God. In that case, does it mean a believer who has difficulty in finding adequate evidence for God’s existence should abandon his faith assuming that faith in God is irrational? Is there sufficient evidence for God’s existence that is accepted by all people everywhere in the first place? What if there is none? The purpose of this paper is to argue the rationality of belief in God even in the absence of compelling evidence. This is not to say there is no evidence at all for God’s existence. However, the point of the paper is that the theistic evidence available is not convincing to everyone and that belief in God does not have to be supported by evidence to be rational. This philosophical position that belief in God is rational without sufficient evidence is termed as Reformed Epistemology. This paper has three sections. In the first section the case of both antitheistic and theistic evidentialists is examined. In the second section, the root of evidentialism and its failure is discussed. Finally in the third section the position of Reformed Epistemology is discussed and defended. I. Antitheistic and Theistic Evidentialists A. Antitheistic Evidentialism Throughout history, the existence of God is denied by atheists for different reasons. Some like A. J. Ayer, for example, reject the proposition that “God exists” on the basis that the truth of such proposition cannot be verified. Others like, J. L. Mackie, denied the existence of God on the basis that the presence of evil in the world is contradictory to the theistic claim that God is both good and omnipotent. The reason for their denial of the existence of God in the case of the atheistic evidentislists, however, is lack of sufficient evidence. They believe it is irrational to hold such belief. Famous philosophers in history like John Lock (1632-1704), David Hume (1711-1776), William Kingon Clifford (1845-1879), Burtrand Russell (1823-1970), Antony Flew (1923-2010) , J. L. Mackie (1917-1981) and Michael Scriven (1928 – Present) claimed that belief in God doesn’t have enough evidence, and therefore it is irrational. The English mathematician and Philosopher W. K. Clifford, in his Ethics of Belief, concluded that it is ethically wrong to hold any belief for anyone anywhere at any moment without evidence. Antony Flew, in his Presumption of Atheism, stated that until theism is proved with “onus of proofs” negative atheism should be assumed. Michael Scriven on the other hand concluded positive denial of God’s existence (unlike Antony Flew) is the only legitimate alternative in the absence of sufficient evidence for God’s existence. These atheists do not only claim the irrationality of belief in God, but also argue that there is no sufficient evidence that support theistic belief. The atheistic evidentialists point is clear from the above conclusion. Dr Kelly Clark wraps up their point in two sentences. 1) It is irrational to believe in God without sufficient evidence, and 2) There are no convincing and compelling evidence for the proposition that there is God. The conclusion is, therefore, belief in God is irrational. B. Theistic Evidentialism In response to the antitheist evidentialists’ conclusion that theism is irrational, theistic evidentialists on the other hand attempt to give different proofs for the existence of God. This effort is called Natural Theology. Natural Theology is “an attempt to discover arguments that will prove or otherwise provide warrant for belief in God without appealing to special revelation, i.e., the Bible.” It assumes that man, only by using his reasoning ability, can learn certain truths about God from the created world. According to this view, the existence and attributes of God can be proven from certain facts about nature, human character, history and so on without inferring to the supernatural revelation. However, it is not only difficult to prove God’s existence on such basis but also it is problematic. Many reasons can be given as to why it is inappropriate to find warrant for the rationality of belief in God based on evidence given by the Natural theology. However, mentioning only four of them suffices for the purpose of this paper. The first problem can be seen from the divine notion that people of every nation, every language and every tribe have or what John Calvin calls “senses divinitates.” In fact, many people are unaware of the arguments of natural theology, yet they find themselves believing that there is God. As Calvin stated it, the conviction that there is a God “is not a doctrine that must first be learned in school, but one of which each of us is master from his mother’s womb and which nature itself permits no one to forget.” Therefore, it would be inappropriate to revert back and attempt to decide the rationality of a naturally gained truth. Second, there are no much scriptural supports to the attempts of natural theology. The scripture simply starts from God assuming His existence is obvious or is basic belief. As the Dutch Reformed Theologian of the late 19th century Herman Bavinack pointed out, the scripture simply orders people to believe that God is the creator of everything when they encounter with the world (Is. 40:26). Rather than arguing for God’s existence, Gen. 1:1 for instance, straightly asserts the creation of the universe by God, assuming His existence. Whether the examination of nature leads people to belief in God or not, it does not matter; but God does exist and He is the creator according to Gen. 1:1. On the other hand, the scripture teaches the fall of man because of sin. Though there is universal divine notion and tendency to believe in God everywhere, man’s ability or tendency is suppressed by sin. His reasoning ability is malfunctioning that he is incapable of knowing God just by reason alone without the intervention of God Himself. Therefore, starting from nature in attempt to prove God’s existence is not the appropriate starting point. One should start from God. The third problem of natural theology concerns the basis of Christian belief. Christians should not base their belief on the arguments of natural theology at all. The major problem in this case is that what was once used as a good argument to support a belief can be dropped later on in light of new discoveries or objections. In this kind of situation, the theist has to tirelessly search for new evidence and arguments like a criminal suspect who tries to prove his innocence. Alvin Plantinga pointed this point jokingly saying “If my belief in God is based on arguments, if then I am to be properly rational … I shall have to keep checking the philosophical journals to see whether, say, Antony Flew has finally come up with a good objection to my favorite argument.” While having the truth, it is not fitting for a believer in God to be tossed back and forth to secure the rationality of his faith. The fourth problem of natural theology is its failure to achieve its purpose. The typical effort of natural theology is to indicate the rationality of belief in God inferring from “statements that all rational creatures are obliged to accept (like: some things are in motion, some things act toward ends or purposively, it is possible for some of the things that exist not to exist).” The problem, however is that, these statements “all rational creatures are obliged to accept” do not bring all rational creatures to the same conclusion. This point can be demonstrated based on “one of the oldest and most popular and intelligible” arguments of the natural theology – the teleological argument. Teleological argument argues that God is the intelligent designer of the universe presuming that the universe is intentionally and purposefully designed. This argument suggests that there is a definite correspondence between the universe and intelligently designed human products like a watch. A watch is a carefully designed device. It has purpose, its constituents are constructed and placed in an orderly manner, and every detail of the watch has particular function. This purposeful design proves that the watch, indeed, has a designer. In the same way, the presence of purpose, order and regularity in the universe proves that the universe was carefully and purposefully designed by an intelligent designer. According to teleological argument, God is that intelligent designer. There are different versions of teleological arguments developed throughout history. The Internet Encyclopedia Philosophy however lists three of the basic and common preemieses of the different arguments. Teleological arguments “typically consist of (1) a premise that asserts that the material universe exhibits some empirical property F; (2) a premise (or sub-argument) that asserts (or concludes) that F is persuasive evidence of intelligent design or purpose; and (3) a premise (or sub-argument) that asserts (or concludes) that the best or most probable explanation for the fact that the material universe exhibits F is that there exists an intelligent designer who intentionally brought it about that the material universe exists and exhibits F.” After believing in the existence and attributes of God, one may appreciate God’s intelligence and his power by studying the created world. However, this argument is not sufficient enough to lead everyone to belief in God. Regardless of the fame and popularity given to this argument, it is not capable of convincing every rational person. Alvin Plantinga, in his God, Freedom and Evil notes the one thing teleological argument may but weakly be able to prove. It may be able to give a “smidgin evidence” for the premise that “the universe was designed.” Here it is important to notice Plantinga’s carful word choice -“smidgin”. This evidence is not abundant enough to be convincing. As a result the very idea that the universe was designed may not be accepted by all. A Bible believer, just by looking at the order in the universe, may easily conclude that the universe is intentionally designed. However, for evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, the world is not intentionally and purposefully designed. Nature itself is responsible for the “apparent” design in the universe. Therefore, teleological argument does not provide adequate evidence for the premise that the universe was designed. Plantinga in the same book gives five other propositions this arguments fails to provide successful evidence for. 1) This argument does not prove that the universe was designed only by one person. There is no proof that the world was not designed by a “committee of deities of some sort.” In this case, let alone the universe, even a small watch found in a “heath” cannot be proven to be designed by a single designer. 2) The argument does not prove that the universe was created out of nothing. 3) It does not prove that the creator of the world (if created) and the designer are the same person. 4) It does not prove the creator (if there is) of the universe has all the attributes of God and 5) It does not prove the creator is a spirit independent of physical materials. Natural theology does not by itself lead to the true God of the Bible. As Nash said, “if we reject special revelation and attempt to reason our way from what we know about the world to the existence of a supposed First Cause, the most reason can establish still leaves us a long way from the one, eternal, infinite, loving, holy, and personal God of the Bible.” What is being said above is not natural theology is useless altogether. It is useless as far as justifying the rationality of belief in God. However, its arguments perfectly go in line with the teachings of the Bible. It confirms what the Bible teaches. If it is true that God is the creator of everything, then the believer should be able to find evidences or arguments that support the truth. Natural theology confirms what the Bible teaches, and in that sense, arguments from natural theology presents good evidence that support the Bible. II. Problems of Evidentialism As discussed in the above section, both antitheistic as well as theistic evidentialism are not useful to show the rationality of belief in God. Antitheistic evidentialism concludes that faith in God is irrational and ethically wrong. Theistic evidentialism, on the other hand, attempts but fails to institute the rationality of belief in the existence of God. In either way, evidentialism is not helpful. Now it is appropriate to investigate why evidentialism is wrong. First, evidentialism fails to differentiate between beliefs that require evidence for rationality and those that do not. A prosecutor, for example, needs physical, circumstantial and scientific evidence to believe that a person is the criminal of a certain crime and prosecute him. However, the prosecutor would be accused of being irrational if he imprisons a person off the street with no evidence. Some beliefs, like this one, are “evidence-essential.” Nevertheless, not all beliefs are evidence-requiring. One does not need to have evidence or proof to believe that one had gone to bed last night. Evidentialism however fails to differentiate between different kinds of beliefs. It “is crucially flawed, because it assumes a faulty analogy when it construes belief in God along the line of belief in a scientific hypothesis.” Second, evidentialism requires believers to debate their case according to the rules set by the evidentialists. The evidentialism requires evidence to be produced before the believer’s belief in God’s existence is considered rational. It is inappropriate for theists to start their case from the grounds of the evidentialism while in truth the theist should start from God and his existence. In addition, as discussed above, proving God’s existence on the basis of natural theology is not always successful. Therefore it is not only unwise to stand on the evidentialist’s side and prove the rationality of faith, it is also wrong. Third evidentialism is false because it is rooted on the principles of classical foundationalism. Foundationalism is a view that attempts to set rules on how one’s knowledge or justified beliefs should be properly structured. According to foundationalism, there is a legitimate way of arriving at a rationally acceptable belief. Just like a house is built on solid foundations, intellectual and rational knowledge should have a solid foundation, which is a set of beliefs or knowledge not inferred from other previously held beliefs. These foundational beliefs are called basic beliefs. Non-foundational or non-basic beliefs, however, should be inferred from basic beliefs to be legitimate or justified. “The foundationalist's thesis in short is that all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief.” Otherwise, a belief or knowledge is illegitimate and irrational. Now the question would be what makes a belief basic or foundational. According to classical foundationalism only beliefs that are evident to the senses, self evident and incorrigible are the foundational or basic belief. Beliefs that are evident to the sense are beliefs “whose truth and falsity depends upon human experience.” These beliefs are formed as a result of one’s sense experience. Upon looking at bank robber walking into a bank with his gun on his hand, a customer may refrain from walking into the building. In this situation the customer would not sit in the car and contemplate on how he arrived at his belief that a gunman walked into the bank building. This kind of belief, obtained immediately as a result of sensory experience, is evident to the senses. Self evident beliefs are beliefs that one determines the truthfulness or falsity of a statement upon understanding the meanings of the statement. In other words, these beliefs are either true or false by definition. For instance, the statement that the sum of total angles of a rectangle is 360 degrees is true by the very definition of a rectangle that is a four-sided polygon where every angle is a right angle or 90 degree. Incorrigible beliefs are statements that cannot be wrong, “even though they fail short of logical necessity.” Statements like I seem to see a mountain or it seems to me that there is a cat on top of the roof cannot be wrong. What the person saw may or may not be what he thought he saw. But the person is not wrong for believing what he has seen is what he thought he saw. All these three kinds of beliefs (i.e., beliefs that are evident to the sense, self evident and incorrigible) are noninferential and are held on the basis of no other beliefs, and they do not need backing with evidence or reason. They are the justified, reasonable, foundational or basic beliefs. The classical foundationalists position that knowledge and beliefs should be founded on a solid foundation is good and helpful. Identifying which beliefs are basic and which are inferential or non basic is also good. However, the problem arises when classical foundationalism limits the basic or foundational belief only to propositions that are evident to the senses, self evident and incorrigible. First, not all noninferential beliefs are evident to the senses, self evident and incorrigible. One’s memory knowledge, for example, that one had preached in a church two days ago is not either self evident, evident to the senses and incorrigible nor is it inferable from previously held beliefs. Classical foundationalism fails to consider other basic beliefs as the foundationals. Second, classical foundationalism fails to measure up to its own requirement of rationality. According to classical foundationalism measurement of rationality, a belief p is rational only on two conditions – 1) if p is self evident, evident to the senses or incorrigible or 2) if p is inferable from a set of basic beliefs listed in 1. However, this proposition of the classical foundationalism itself does not meet any of the two conditions of rationality. It is neither basic nor it is inferable from the foundationals given by foundationalism. Therefore, Plantinga concludes that classical foundationalism is “self referentially incoherent and must therefore be rejected.” III. Reformed Epistemology So far it is discussed that evidentialism is not a plausible approach in discussing the rationality of belief in God. Antitheistic evidentialism denies the rationality of belief in God. Theistic evidentialism fails to show the rationality of belief in God based on the evidentialists rule. Evidentialism not only fails to show the rationality of belief in God, but it also fails its own test of rationality. Now what is left for a believer in God to show the rationality of his faith? Is belief in God rational in the absence of evidence? One finds the right answer from the proposition of the Reformed Epistemology that belief in God is properly basic and therefore, is rational even without evidence. Like evidentialism, reformed epistemology is also rooted in foundationalism. But unlike classical foundationalism, the foundational beliefs accepted by Reformed Epistemology are broader than beliefs that are evident to the senses, self evident and incorrigible. As indicated above, the basic beliefs limited by classical foundationalism are not the only basic beliefs. Memory beliefs like I did not sleep the whole night last night, beliefs about the past one acquires upon reading a book or hearing from instructor like George Washington was the first president of America, belief in other minds like there are other persons in the world other than me etc. are basic beliefs. One acquires these beliefs without inferring to previously held beliefs or without inferring to any other basic beliefs. These types of beliefs not only are basic because they are not inferable from other belief, but also these beliefs are accepted as rational beliefs without evidence. Basic beliefs have grounds or conditions that justify their. All basic beliefs mentioned in the above passages have grounds or conditions that lead a person to holding those basic beliefs. A person who acquired knowledge about George Washington being the first president of America reading a history book may not have evidence for the truth and rationality of his newly acquired belief. But it is not groundless. His experience of trusting other history books and other related conditions, justify his belief. In the same way, Reformed Epistemology justifies the rationality of belief in God by showing that 1) belief in God is properly basic, and 2) it is not groundless belief. In his book God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God printed first in 1967, Alvin Plantinga compares belief in God with belief in other minds. Upon meeting a man on a road, one immediately believes that the man one met on the road is in fact a human being and that he has personality. Though one may not be able to see how the other person thinks, feels and knows, one’s experience of encountering with other persons enables one to belief that the other person is indeed a person. In the same way a believer in God does not see God Himself and how He acts, but upon encountering the created world, he believes in the existence of God who created the world. It is noteworthy to read Herman Bavinack’s words in this regard. “Of the existence of self, or the world round about us, of logical and moral laws, etc., we are deeply convinced because of the indelible impressions which all these things make upon our consciousness that we need no arguments or demonstration. Spontaneously, altogether involuntarily: without any constraint or coercion, we accept that existence. Now the same is true in regard to the existence of God. The so called proofs are by no means the final grounds of our most conviction that God exists. The certainty is established by faith; that is by spontaneous testimony which forces itself upon us from every side.” Showing the analogy between forming beliefs in God and other minds, Plantinga concludes “if my belief in other minds is rational, so is my belief in God. But obviously the former is rational; so, therefore, is the latter.” However, this belief in God is not groundless. Alvin Plantinga uses John Calvin’s “senses divinitates” to point out that belief in God is not groundless. History and experience show that people of every generation, location, tribe and language have divine notion in them. People find themselves believing in the existence of a God who created the world. People are created with a tendency to give credit to God for the creation of the world. Conclusion Belief in the existence of God is not irrational regardless of evidence for the belief. However, many devoted atheists attempted to make it seem irrational and an ethically wrong belief to hold based on the evidentialist theory of rationality. While surrendering to the evidentialism theory of rationality is a danger, the real threat to theistic belief is failing to know that belief in God is properly basic. The Bible starts assuming belief in God is basic (Gen 1:1). It teaches that people are created with the tendency to know and believe in God (Rom 1:19). Therefore everyone has divine notion in him. Once the truth that belief in God is basic is dropped, the theist has no option but to look for evidence to justify his faith as if he does not know his faith is rational. However, belief in God is basic and therefore rational. A believer does not the obligation of producing evidence for the rationality of his belief. If he finds good arguments that support his belief, that is exceptional. If not, as Plantinga once wrote, he “is entirely right, rational, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all.”   BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alston, William P. Perceiving God. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Bavinck, Herman. The Doctrine of God. Trans. William Hendericksen. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1951. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion. ed. John T. Macneill,... Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster press, 1960. Clark, Kelly James. Return to Reason, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Co., 1990. Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York: Norton, 1986. Engen, J. Van. “Natural Theology.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1984. Flew, Anthony. The Presumption of Atheism. London: Pemberton, 1976. Helm, Paul. ed. Faith and Reason. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Himma, Kenneth Einar. “Design Arguments for the Existence of God.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1984. Hoover, A. J. “God, Arguments for the Existence of.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1984. Mackie, J. L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1982. Nash, Ronald H. Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith. Grand Rapids, Academie Books, 1988. Plantinga, Alvin C., and Nicholas Wolterstorff. Faith and rationali : reason and belief in God. Notre Dame, Ind: Univ of Notre Dame Pr, 1983. Plantinga, Alvin C. and Tooley, Michael. Knowledge of God. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008. Plantinga, Alvin C. God and Other Minds. New York: Cornell Univ Pr, 1967. Plantinga, Alvin C. God, Freedom and Evil. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974. Plantinga, Alvin C. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Scriven, Michael. Primary Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Taliaferro, Charles. Contemporary Philosophy of Religion. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1998. Articles Anderson, James N. "If knowledge then God: the Epistemological Theistic Arguments of Alvin Plantinga and Cornelius Van Til." Calvin Theological Journal 40, no. 1 (April 1, 2005): 49-75. Apczynski, John V. "Belief in God, Proper Basicality, and Rationality." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 60, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 301-312. Baker, Deane-Peter. "Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology: What's the Question?." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57, no. 2 (April 1, 2005): 77-103. Bishop, John, and Imran Aijaz. "‘How to Answer the de jure Question about Christian Belief’." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 56, no. 2/3 (October 2004): 109-129. Colwell, Jason. "The Historical Argument for the Christian Faith: a Response to Alvin Plantinga."International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 53, no. 3 (June 1, 2003): 147-161. Cullity, Garrett. "IN Search of the Foundations of Rationality." Philosophical Books 44, no. 1 (January 2003): 4. Fumerton, Richard, "Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/justep-foundational/ (accessed May 1, 2011). Mittag, Daniel M. “Evidentialism.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2004) http://www.iep.utm.edu/ (accessed May 1, 2011). Plantinga, Alvin C. "Is belief in God properly basic." In Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology, 133-141. New York: Oxford Univ. Pr, 1992. Poston, Ted. “Foundationalism,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010), http://www.iep.utm.edu/found-ep/ (accessed May 1, 2011). Tilley, Terrence W. "Reformed Epistemology and Religious Fundamentalism: How Basic are Our Basic Beliefs?" Modern Theology 6, no. 3 (April 1, 1990): 237-257. Stackhouse, John Gordon. 2001. "Mind over Skepticism: Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has Defeated Two of the Greatest Challenges to the Christian Faith." Christianity Today 45, no. 8: 74-76. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. "Herman Bavinck--Proto Reformed Epistemologist." Calvin Theological Journal 45, no. 1 (April 1, 2010): 133-146.