Well, folks, it’s time. I now feel like I’ve built up enough suspense. It’s time for me to defend my views and really get the discussion started. I’ve written two introductory, though necessary, posts as to the function of this blog. Now, I will give you the last, a hybrid post composed of introductory orientation and apologetics, as a segue to what typically the content will look like. Previously, I think I have made it clear what my worldview is, but if somehow you missed it there or in the orange headline above the text, I’m a Christian theist. I feel like it’s time to provide some basic explanation and justification for my position because I don’t think I can go much longer without doing so and losing some credibility. It’s time to show I can get my hands dirty.
Firstly, I’ve been raised in a Christian household my whole life. Now, I anticipate already an objection, and before it takes too much shape, I would like to head it off. No, I wasn’t the victim of indoctrination and mental conditioning, and therefore unable to think for myself. An objection of the same vein is that if I had been born in polytheistic Greece, I would worship Zeus, Athena, Apollo etc. instead of the Judeo/Christian God. That, my belief in the supernatural is contingent on my social environment. I love how this objection presupposes the individual unable to think for his or herself. I think with any real reflection, most people should think this assumption is false. Setting does not guarantee belief as evidenced by examples such as Aristotle, a product of ancient Greece, who actually came to belief in the existence of a Supreme Being. His concept of God, in fact, was similar to the one many hold today, and has influenced theologians and theistic philosophers up until this day.
Maybe some would argue I have obstinately clung to dogma in the face of evidence like Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. But I challenge these people to show how the truth of the theory nullifies God’s existence. It doesn’t logically follow that if evolution is true, then God does not exist. Much in the same way, the existence of alien civilizations or extraterrestrial life does not mean there is no God. Many Christians, Muslims, Jews accept the theory of evolution, but still are devoted to their respective religions. Personally, I’m an agnostic towards evolution because I do have what I think to be scientific criticisms of the theory, but my belief in God does not depend on whether or not we evolved from simpler life forms into more complex ones. The real battle for God’s existence, I think, is fought in philosophy, not science.
The truth of the matter is I have been exposed to the same information as many atheists, but I have chosen that theism makes more sense than atheism in regards to the evidence. It’s that simple. The whole issue is not as black and white as some naturalists think it is. There isn’t a preponderance of evidence that overwhelmingly supports atheism. I actually believe it supports theism, and we may disagree on this claim, which is fine, but the debate isn’t so one-side as some think it is.
For the sake of brevity, I can’t go into very deep detail as to what I believe to be strong evidence for Christian theism, but as I write more and more posts, the picture should become clearer. But to give you a taste, I think German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz’s question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” really gets to the heart of the issue. Yes, I think there is evidence and arguments for both Biblical Christianity and the existence of the monotheistic Judeo/Christian God, but I have another reason for my belief.
Layered inside Leibniz’s question is another — what other explanation could there be? I think Leibniz means other theories just seem inadequate in scope compared to theism, and I agree. I find the metaphysical naturalism often associated with atheism to be a shallow worldview, and its failures have solidified me in theism. These glaring weaknesses are seldom brought to light because usually the naturalist is always on the offensive in the debate. I hope to levy some of these problems against that ideology on this medium in later posts, but I will allude to a few cases.
Many atheists hold the universe exists out of the necessity of its own nature. Claiming, if God has always existed, why can’t the universe? But this is a corner the naturalist really does not want to back into because there is strong evidence, both philosophical and empirical, that render such a claim absurd. I also find, given a naturalistic ideology, the is/ought problem laid out by Scottish philosopher David Hume and the related naturalistic fallacy, presents a very high hurdle indeed for atheists if morality exists. And through a priori intuition, I would argue it does.
So in a nutshell, that’s why I believe what I do.