The Coherence of Theism

Coherence of Theism

Can theism as a whole stand on its own two feet, or must it borrow from naturalism? Can one be rational and still believe in theism, that is, God. Or must all conceptions of a God be tossed away in favor contemporary materialistic thought? These are precisely the issues presented here.

In order to produce a case for theism four common objections will be addressed and evaluated: Theistic proofs (treated broadly here including mystical experiences and miracles), the problem of evil, Divine omniscience and human freedom, and whether or not science conflicts with religion. Although one might discuss many other concerns, space does not allow for them to be discussed except as they fit within the framework of the major concerns.

I. Theistic Proofs.

Is there a sure-fire proof for the existence of God, some empirical observation that apodictically shows theism? Perhaps mystical experiences or miracles are evidences of a Creator? If it were so easily done, then there would surely be a lot more theists in the world. So then the question really comes down to this: Do rational arguments or experiences prove God? I believe they do not. Arguments only make sense in a certain framework, which is commonly called a worldview. So which worldview ought we to adopt? This will become clearer as we look at some examples of theistic evidences.

A. Basis for Theistic Proofs

What then do the theistic evidences prove? Do they prove the existence of God? No. They only breed contradiction unless one is honest about their worldview, because it seems apparent that God must be a basic belief for any epistemic foundation. If we, for argument sake, assume God at the outset it breeds no contradiction when we look at evidences. If one assumes no God at the out-set it is generally easy to dismiss theistic arguments in some way.

B. Classical Arguments

If God is assumed, why not take Aquinas’ famous cosmological argument at face value? It makes a lot of sense, that there must be some first cause that caused the universe to come into existence. What about St. Anselm’s ontological argument? It makes perfectly good sense to assume God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. And what is greater, something in the mind or something in reality? Obviously the latter, then by definition God must exist. When stepping in the shoes of the theist’s worldview, these proofs make perfect sense, but step into the shows of the devout atheist and they fall into absurdity. If one assumes no God at the outset, then there need not be a first cause for creation. Matter may very well be eternal. And perhaps the ontological argument only shows the logical possibility and not the actuality of God’s existence.

C. Mystical Experiences and Miracles

What about miracles or mystical experiences are they valid proofs? For example think of the many miracles recorded in the bible. The 12 plagues of Egypt, the parting of the red sea and so on. The most historically accepted miracle is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These on the word-view of the theist make sense. Of course if there is a God he will perform miracles. And these documents demonstrating miracles must then be true (assuming they are coherent accounts).

What about mystical experience? Many people around the world experience things which they describe as divine. Is this a sort of proof? Not an empirical one it seems. It is only observed by the person who experiences it, and even then many of the experiences are questionable. But it makes sense if one were a theist.

Both miracles and mystical experience can easily be explained by the atheist though. As for miracles, perhaps there is a natural explanation for them. Further, even if something bizarre did happen, in a world of abstract chance and change, why could not something bizarre happen? This does not prove the existence God, just that the universe is in a constant flux. Second, mystical experiences are un-provable according to today’s scientific method and therefore non-verifiable. Finally, it is in question whether or not these experiences are in any sense effable. If as most mystics claim their experiences are un-individuated unity, how is it that they can have self knowledge of the event? Perhaps they can describe the function, but then how can they describe an ineffable experience in propositional claims? This seems to be self-contradictory.
How can we then know if there is a God or not? By seeing which of the two systems, theism and non-theism, is more rational. If Theism can adequately defend itself where it is most attacked, it may be the more rational system, therefore the one we ought to cleave to. The following aims to meet this goal.

II. The Problem of Evil

Almost everyone will admit that something is not right with the world. There is something intuitively wrong when we see suffering and death. When friends and family die no one would say that this is a “good” thing. Some have suggested that if God exists there should not be death and suffering. Surely a good God would never allow evil and if he did, how can he be legitimately called good? From this, it is speculated that no god can exist, if he is a good and an all-powerful god.

But theism does have answers and defenses to these problems. Two will be shown here, both have merits and aspects of truth. They are the free-will defense and the greater good defense. The free-will defense briefly illustrated is this: God created mankind good and perfect and to create good and perfect must mean that man has a free will. For one to be free means (broadly), that you have an actual choice between opposites, for example between good and evil. Therefore God never caused evil or created evil but man chose to do an evil action, resulting in a world that is no longer good. So God is no longer to blame for evil but rather the guilty party is we ourselves.

If this seems to be a contradiction with God being omnipotent, namely, controlling all facts whatsoever, it may be postulated that God actualized a world with a decree for evil to exist for a greater good. But if God decreed evil and all events would he not be the author of evil? Perhaps, so some who understand this second view show a different model of free will, one that is compatible with God’s omnipotence and man’s freewill. This view will be explained in greater detail later in the Divine Omniscience and Human Freedom section. So what is the greater good? It could be one of many things. I take it to be the resurrection body of Christian-theism. God decreed evil in order to destroy our mortal bodies in order to give us greater pleasure in our resurrected or glorified bodies. This also would glorify God more, so that he could show his humility and self sacrifice in the incarnation and his glory in the future.
III. Divine Omniscience and Human Freedom

Another objection to the coherence of theism is this: If God is infinitely powerful and knows the future and every contingency in the future, can it really be said that man is free? This can be a complicated problem, but for now we will deal with it broadly and try to come to a satisfactory conclusion. There are basically three ways to deal with this. One, God is not really omniscient or in control but awaits his creatures free actions. Second, God is in control and man has no real free choices, and of necessity is determined, this is a form of fatalism. Or finally, that God is both in control and does allow free choices.

A. Open Freedom

The first conception does allow real free choice, but does have many negatives. On this conception of God it is hard to say that there can be an objective authority that gives meaning to experience. That is, God is not back of history and is not controlling it, so as to give it meaning. Next, in this view it seems that they have no determinative authority in the form revelation. For instance, the Bible and the Koran speak of a God who controls all things. So then this view must rely on mystical experience, which in and of itself is nothing that can be verified.

B. Fatalism

The Second conception screams foul play, since everyone thinks they are free and revelation constantly tells us we are free. In the bible, one is constantly exhorted to choose whom they ought to worship and to come apprehend the Christ in faith. The resulting fatalism eliminates moral responsibility and consequently makes God the author of evil. This view must at all costs be avoided, if only for the prior commitment to an All-Good God.

C. Compatible types of freewill

Finally, the third conception finds God’s decree and active will to be compatible with man’s free choices. This can be split into two broad categories, Libertarian free-will and Compatiblistic free-will. The latter seems to be the strongest between the two. Its basic premise is this: God decrees to actualize a world wherein all choices are casually effected by the social environment effecting the agent, so that the agent can only chose what God has decreed but also that the agent chooses precisely what he wills at that moment. Thus allowing a free choice that is determined, whereas libertarian free-will allows a free-choice that is not decreed by God, making him only partially omnipotent and personal, that is, he is not determining the choice nor is personal in the acting of the choice.

IV. Science and Religion


What about science and religion do they have any major conflicts? Perhaps creation and modern day naturalism is an issue or perhaps divine action and a purely naturalistic materialistic worldview is a conflict? Both seemingly conflict with each other and will be addressed in this section.

The idea of a creator, does not necessarily conflict with a modern day naturalistic worldview, but creation does conflict with naturalism if one takes the biblical account literally. Here is why I think this is, if God created the world, he may have created it with only a few single-celled organisms. These may have, over millions of years evolved into what we see today. This does not conflict with creation per se. But there is a conflict if one takes the bible literally, for Christian scripture says that God created the world in 6 literal days and then gives subsequent chronologies of people’s lives showing that since creation it has only been thousands of years. Furthermore, it says that God created the universe mature, this seems to conflict with naturalism. So if one were simply a theist there does not appear to be conflict, but if one is a theist with an authority (Koran, Torah, Bible etc.) there is an issue.

V. Conclusion

So it appears it is rational to hold God as a basic pre-supposition, or basic belief in order to re-interpret reality. There does not seem to be a contradiction with theistic evidences, they all fall into place when one is honest with their bias. Secondly, God is not the author of evil nor does his omniscience and omnipotence in anyway contradict his omni-benevolent nature. Furthermore man’s freewill and God’s omnipotence may be compatible. Finally, Science does not contradict theism, it may even rely on God for its consistent universal laws. So then, it appears that holding God as basic is more rational than to hold no God as basic. In conclusion holding to theism over non-theism appears more rational or at least as rational, so there should not be any shame in holding to theism.