A reason is not a proof!

By Arron Bergeron

Prior to continuing with my critique of Guy Harrison's book, there is one more matter which much be addressed. In the debate over God's existence it seems there is no end to argument or rhetoric. As a Christian theist, and apologist, I have to admit my frustration when the argumentation I wade through has been clouded by an absence of reason and an abundance ad hominem attack, from either side of the battle lines. In the same vein, when such poor argumentation acts as a stumbling block for the theist and the atheist alike in their potential approach to God, I’m compelled to do what little I can to remove the stumbling block. I admit I do enjoy the mental exercise. Primarily, though, if Jesus Christ is Who the bible claims Him to be, then I must step up to the microphone and say something; "Woe to me if I do not preach."¹

Guy Harrison's book, “50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God", overall is an excellent example of rhetoric and poor argumentation which does a disservice to any who sincerely want to form reasonable conclusions from the debate. More so, as a Christian, it is the type of atheist literature which could potentially provide those who simply don't want to believe with more poor excuses, and act as a stumbling block for those who want to or already do.

In the introduction to "50 reasons"² , Harrison makes a valid point in assessing the state of the debate. In one hand there are the arguments being tackled at the formal philosophical level in what appear to be the ivory towers of academia; on the other hand there are the reasons people have for belief or non-belief at the street level. It is this popular level audience to whom the book is addressed. That does not mean, however, that the work of religious philosophers and theologians is just noise³.  Summarily dismissing it as such, as Harrison does, without taking the time to completely understand the arguments is intellectually dishonest, and literarily irresponsible. I think we should be able to expect more from an educated journalist. With respect, I must ask if the atheist community would allow for such a dismissal of the scholarly work of evolutionists in the same way Harrison dismisses the advanced work of the theologians and philosophers today, condemning it as mere noise. From what I have experienced I must evidently say, “no”. Rather then ignoring these academic pursuits, what is needed is a bridge between the two levels of interaction in the debate forum itself. When this happens, everyone is elevated to greater heights.

Reason and conscience, however, demand that a fatal flaw be pointed out in the overall premise and argumentation of the book. There are reasons for everything. Some reasons are good, and some are bad. To have a reason for belief is not the same thing as having a proof or an evidence for belief, whatever the belief. For example, believing in God because He intuitively seems obvious, while it may be a good personal reason for an individual to believe, it is certainly not an argument or proof of God’s existence. More unpacking of this argument and my rebuttal will come later. The immediate fact is that knowing something within ones self is intuitional. As such it is a valid way of knowing something of the universe. The problem arises when attempts are made to justify the belief, because intuition is subjective, and therefore not testable apart from external proof and argumentation. Intuitional knowledge then is at least possible, but knowing and showing are two different things. As such, to dismiss an individual’s intuitive knowledge is arrogant, and claims knowledge that is absolutely unavailable to the skeptic, chiefly, the knowledge that resides purely in another’s mind. If intuitive knowledge is possible, then it is rational. To deny it out of hand is irrational. In the arena of ideas, to question it is needful.

On this point I side with the thinking of Harrison. Religious belief should not be above challenge. It should never be out of bounds⁴. But a word to the skeptics, that also includes the religious belief there is no God. How is non-belief religious? Let me present an analogy; when two doctors are debating the existence of cancer cells in a patient, is it not still biology? How about mathematicians disputing over the validity of a proof, have they left the sphere of mathematics? In like manner when the theist and atheist disagree about the existence of God, there is no justification for claiming it is a battle between religion and reason, or faith and science. It is a matter of faith verses faith. Ignoring the hidden slander and dismissal of religious belief as irrational, both propositions are purely metaphysical and religious in nature. Non-theist, atheist, skeptic, agnostic… whatever the non-believer wishes to call himself, he has never left the realm of religious belief so long as he engages in the debate. By this reasoning, it is clear atheism is not segregated to the realm of science or reason against the theist; both are still squarely set in the arena of the metaphysical and under the umbrella of religion.

In conclusion, engaging in the debate by questioning people’s reasons for belief can be a wholly worthwhile endeavor. On the other hand, so can it be when asking the reasons for non-belief. To quote Harrison, “fairness and logic demand that we respect the indigenous tribal believer who sees many gods…the ancient Greek who saw several gods… as much as we do the monotheist who sees one God.”⁵ Fairness and logic also demand we respect the atheist enough to answer their questions, question their presuppositions, question their reasons, and refute their poor arguments and counter arguments in the pursuit of truth.

Notes and references

1. 1 Cor 10:9

2. Henceforth indicating reference to "50 reasons people give or believing in a god", Guy P. Harrison, Prometheus Books, 2008

3. “Believing”, pg. 13

4. ibid, pg 15

5. ibid, pg 14-15