The Rationality of God

Weather or not you consider yourself religious or nonreligious, regardless of your worldview, you seek truth; you affirm and reject things based on various presuppositions, facts, notions, ideas, ect. The most foundational question one can ask oneself is "Does God exist?". Regardless of how one answers this question, there is another that follows it: "Is my conclusion on this matter rational?" How you answer this question, and what methods you use to ultimately arrive at your answer, if taken seriously, shapes how you view the world, interact with people, and how you live your life.

Many people believe in what is called classical foundationalism. This is the belief that everything must be based on sensory experience or self-evident truths. This leads to eventialism, which is probably best summized by a quote from English mathematician and philosopher William K. Clifford from his essay The Ethics of Belief:

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

There is certainly a lot to be unpacked from that statement, but a more formal way of wording this argument as it applies to belief in god looks like this:

(1) Belief in God is rational only if there is sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

(2) There is not sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

(3) Therefore, belief in God is irrational.

Now, as this is a valid argument, the theist has a few options. Either the theist accepts what is said as true and either a) forsakes belief in God. or b) admits the belief is irrational and continues believing anyway; or the theist works to refute one of the premises and show it to be an invalid argument.

A large number of Christians, especially evangelicals, tend to argue against the second premise. They point to things such as the universe existing in the first place (the Cosmological Argument), the universe showing signs of intelligent design (the Teleological Argument), the concept of morality (Moral Argument), or the fact that we can conceive of God in the first place (the Ontological Argument). While these arguments are valuable, they are also easy to dispute. Random chance with an assumption of eternal matter takes the place of the Cosmological argument. Macro-Evolution takes the place of the Teleological and Moral arguments. The Ontological Argument is often written off as bad grammar.

The second way of refuting this argument, called Reformed Epistemology, attacks the second premise. It makes belief in God foundational, that is, it says that belief in God is rational without the support of evidence or argument. Some of the grounds for this are as follows:

Demand for "sufficient evidence" can't be met consistently. That is, many things that people consider to be completely rational do not have a shred of evidence attached to them. Try proving the existence of other people, or that yesterday happened. No one can prove these things, yet it is perfectly rational to know that these things will happen. So belief in God is more akin to belief in other people, rather than belief in an scientific equation. Secondly, as it is rational to trust in what other people tell us, in the belief of the past, ect. so it is rational to belief that we are rational if these experiences produce in us belief in God. (This is what Calvin called the sensus divinitatus, or "sense of the divine".)

In wrapping this up, I think it is important to examine and question one's belief. Understanding what you believe and why you believe it are essential regardless of one's worldview. Doubting your faith, or having a theistic argument make sense to you (for the atheist), does not mean that one should instantly tear down everything you believe in. People have good reasons for belief as well as disbelief. As long as healthy dialogue and intellectual honesty is maintained, truth will prevail. As a theist, I find that reformed epistemology works well in explaining my conversion and it helps me in retaining my faith. "Believing so that I may understand", I continue in spite of my doubt.

Links to lots of things that cover what I talked about in much, much greater detail:

Without Evidence or Argument: A Defense of Reformed Epistemology
Religious Epistemology (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Philosophy of Religion
The Ethics of Belief by William K. Clifford
The Knowledge of God the Creator by John Calvin (Institutes, book I)