A friend asks, “Why should I trust a God I can’t see or prove even exists?”
If such a scenario hasn’t happened, it will. Even some reading this now are probably saying, “Good point,” to this argument.
So…how would you respond?
Let’s listen to Dr. Jerry Root share his own story of responding to such a question after a class he taught (which, I believe, captures so well the crux of the real flaw with the initial question).
Here is the transcript:
I [Dr. Root] said [to this atheist student], “…You’re from Brown University, you must be very bright–ivy league school–tell me about that, what are you studying?”
She says, “Biochemistry.”
We talked a little further and I said, “Well we talked about spiritual things in this class. What did you think?”
She said, “Well, as a biochemist,” which I thought was a little premature–she was only a sophomore. She said, “As a biochemist, I live by the principle if I can’t perceive it empirically I just don’t believe it.”
I said, “That’s the principle you live by? If you can’t perceive something empirically you won’t believe it?”
She says, “Yes.”
I said, “Would you please set that principle forth for me empirically?”
I hope you see the problem. It’s an inherent contradiction. It’s a proposition that is not empirically perceived…
She saw the contradiction. She was a bright Brown student, and she freaked out.
She said, “I’ve never seen the contradiction in my own presupposition.” She said, “Why, everybody at Brown University believes this.”
I said, “No, there’s Christians there, too.”
And I said, “And you know what? Just to be fair to materialists, I’ve met materialists who would never subscribe to that. So let’s be fair.”
But I said, “This is the thing. Um, John Polkinghorne, who taught at Cambridge University and was…had a degree in theology and a degree in physics. He taught physics; he was the president of one of the Cambridge University colleges. He said, ‘If you ask the scientist, “Why is the kettle boiling?,” the scientists would tell you based on the measureable features, on observable features: the heat from the burner is agitating the molecules and it’s burning it up. I mean, it’s ah, ah…at a hundred degrees centigrade sea level it boils.’
“He says, ‘That’s a good answer, that’s the answer the scientist would give you.’
“He said, ‘But you could also say, “I would like a cup of tea, and would you like one, too?” And the second answer you couldn’t arrive at by mere scientific method.'”
And so this becomes very, very important.
And I said to her, too, “Mortimer Adler, the philosopher, who was at the University of Chicago, said, ‘In three generations we’ve gone from saying, “That which is measurable is that which is important for science,” to saying, “That which is measurable is the only thing that’s important.”‘”Lecture by Jerry Root, Lanier Theological Library, Sept. 18, 2019
In case you missed it, here’s the point:
Everyone begins with unproven assumptions. Let’s call those presuppositions. Even the one who demands scientific proof is beginning with the presupposition that empirical, scientific proof is a necessary prerequisite to following Christ. Where does such a notion come from? It is a presupposition that cannot be proven (which is the ultimate irony).
Of course, Christians also have presuppositions.
I presuppose that Jesus is Lord, and that the Bible is His Word. I believe such conviction only happen by revelation, and that revelation comes primarily and specifically through God’s Spirit and God’s Scripture (as we have humble hearts to obey/receive)…but also comes in a general way through reason, observation, and nature.
So if we can all agree that we all start with presuppositions, the true question is:
Whose presuppositions are the most sound, consistent with reality, and ultimately true?
Now that’s a question worth exploring!