I just added a new page: Both Scientists & Christians. It’s a list of doctorate-holding scientists who are Christians. It’s very incomplete … I started the list while I was doing some research for my article Science & Religion: Competitors or Companions? and figured I should post it online in case anyone finds it helpful.

Although much is made about the “rise of atheism” I generally find that people I talk with are not atheists, they are either agnostic or vaguely deistic/theistic pluralists. Those who are not atheists generally would affirm the following (note that I say “generally” so this may not apply to you personally):

1) God [at least probably] exists.

2) God is good.

3) You can’t know anything about God.

I realize that 2) and 3) seem to contradict eachother, but I’ve heard several people say one and then the other. Generally what the person means is something like: “You could know something general about God (like God is good, or God is love) but nothing specific.” ie, you might know some very general things about God but you can’t really KNOW God in the detail or personal way that the Bible suggests.

We could explore the rationale behind the idea that God is unknowable (which, IMHO, ends up being faulty upon closer examination) but I wanted to try a different tack today. I imagined this conversation, which was inspired by starting to read John Piper’s Desiring God (available for free online as an ebook):

Me: So, you think God probably exists and is good?

Agnostic: Yeah.

Me: But it’s also your belief that we can’t really know God in any substantial way?

Agnostic: That’s right.

Me: I think that belief is faulty and based on false presuppositions, but would you say that a God who is good would want to give us what is good?

Agnostic: That seems to make sense.

Me: And would you agree that if God is good, then God by definition would not be merely kinda good, but God would be maximally or perfectly good?

Agnostic: Yes.

Me: Would you say it would be good for God to withhold from us what would be most good for us?

Agnostic: No, I wouldn’t think so.

Me: So then, for God to be good, he would have to give us what is most good for us. What would you say would be most good for us?

Agnostic: I’m not sure.

Me: Well, if God is maximally or perfectly good, wouldn’t what is most good for us to be God Himself? If he is maximally or perfectly good, He would want to share Himself with us.

Agnostic: I’m hesitant to say yes, but it’s hard to imagine what would be more good.

Me: So then: For God to be maximally or perfectly good, He must necessarily share Himself with us. For if God did not do so, He could not be maximally or perfectly good, and wouldn’t be God at all! Therefore, He must share of Himself with us, and we have the opportunity and ability to know Him.

Now, someone might then wonder: If God desires to give us what is maximally or perfectly good, whence comes evil? That takes us into the whole other issue of theodicy (study of the problem of evil) but keep in mind that asking “What about evil?” doesn’t invalidate the argument above, it merely raises an unanswered question regarding its ramifications.

I was responding to a comment on Power to Change’s website just now and had this thought … not sure if this argument is valid, sound, cogent, etc, but I think it’s at least interesting. I’m quite certain I must’ve read it or heard something like it before but I’m not sure where.

An attempt to argue that naturalistic systems of morality are innately inferior to theistic systems:

Any naturalistic morality system is ultimately unjust, and therefore immoral. Here’s why: Human beings rightly crave justice, and any system of morality that is unjust would be by definition immoral. But if there is no afterlife (and therefore no final accountability for a person’s actions), then life itself is ultimately unfair since good deeds will often go unrewarded and bad behavior will often go unpunished. Therefore, only a moral system that includes an afterlife (and by implication, God) where justice regarding a person’s actions can be appropriately meted out can be just. Any moral system that does not is immoral and therefore deficient.

Thinking about how both God & evil can coexist … given this proposed dichotomy: “God can either do literally anything and everything, or he cannot”:

If God can do literally anything and everything, this includes things that are contradictory. Ex, he can make a square circle, or can create something the smells purple. If this is so, there is no problem with God’s goodness and the existence of evil in the world, because since God can do anything, such seeming contradictions should not faze us.

On the other hand, if God cannot do literally anything and everything (as is suggested in the Bible, ex God cannot lie), then this means that there are certain things that God cannot do. Thus, it is at least possible that the existence of free-willed creations (which could freely choose evil) and God’s omnibenevolence (perfect goodness) and omnipotence (all-powerfulness) are not incompatible, since it may not be possible for God to have the former (free will) without the latter (evil) to some degree.

This is part of the argument given in Alvin Plantinga’s landmark (but difficult since it’s written for philosophers) book God, Freedom and Evil … at least, as I understand it. (Short essay based on the book is available here.) He goes into considerably more detail in that book and no doubt with much more precise terminology and philosophical acumen than I have here. Not sure why it suddenly came to mind today, but thought I’d type it out. It makes sense in my own head …