Evidence for God from Science

I find this to be an interesting topic, and this writer discusses it in relation to apologetics. The following is a large excerpt from one of his articles. There is a link at the end to a more detailed article. This is by Greg Koukl, entitled "Knowledge and Intuition," and it is from here: http://www.bethinking.org/truth-toleran ... uition.htm

I'm convinced that many of the things essential to a Christian world view are things all human beings already believe without being told: the idea that human beings are special, valuable, made in the image of God and have transcendent value; that there's purpose in life; that man is not only valuable, but twisted, sinful, and guilty and deserves to be punished; that God is real and has made an orderly universe and designed it for a purpose. These are a few things off the top of my head, essential parts of the Christian view of the world that I believe every person already knows deep down inside.

Some of these things I mentioned are known through the faculty of intuition. When I say 'intuition,' I mean something very particular. I don't mean female intuition--a type of insight into a circumstance. I don't mean a hunch about something. I mean a way of knowing which is immediate and direct. It's knowledge you start with, knowledge that's already built in. Our founding fathers called it 'self-evident' truth.

This kind of truth isn't a result of reasoning to a conclusion, so intuitional knowledge doesn't require a defense. Some people are uncomfortable with this notion. It seems like cheating. Philosopher J.P. Moreland has pointed out, though, that if you can't know some things without knowing why you know them--if you don't have some things in place to begin with--you can't know anything at all. You can't even begin the task of discovery. Aristotle said that some things can't be proved, but without them you can't prove anything.

There are certain things you must know immediately--directly--in order to have the tools you need to begin learning other things. For example, how is it that you know--and you're going to say that only a philosopher would ask this kind of question--how is it you know which body in the room is your own? How do you know that you inhabit the body you normally call yours?

How does Greg Koukl know he inhabits and possesses the body that's sitting right now behind the mike in the KBRT studios? I don't reason my way to this knowledge. It's something I know through introspective awareness. I'm introspectively aware of the fact that I'm unified with this body.

If you tell me to prove it, you'd be making an odd request. Maybe an evidence might be that when I will my hand to move, then it's the hand of this body that begins moving, not the hand of the body across the room. That might be an indication to me which body is mine. But it seems unreasonable for me to have to offer such evidence, because my knowledge of which body is my own is immediate, an intuitive awareness that gives me truth about the world.

I use this bizarre example for a reason. The answer to the question of which body is our own seems so obvious one wonders why even ask the question? That's the point. We ask the question because we're trying to get at the foundation of knowledge and not take anything for granted. But it seems like a foolish question, because it's so obvious which body is ours. We know the answer directly. We take it for granted, and we think it's foolish to even question it. That's the power of intuitive knowledge. I think we know many things like that.

Part of the tactical approach I take as a Christian apologist that capitalizes on the fact of intuitional knowledge is a concept I call 'Back of the Book.' I know things that are true about people I've only just met, but they don't know I know. I know some of their secrets, in a sense. How do I know them? Because God has revealed, in the Bible, things that are true about every human being. I've read the 'back of the book'; I know how the story ends. I've peeked into the person's private file, and so can you.

Because the Book tells us true things about every human being--awareness of God's existence, the sense of our own value, a knowledge of our own sin and guilt, etc.--we can appeal to those things knowing we're touching a nerve. Even if a person denies these things are true, I know he's lying to himself. In his heart of hearts he knows it, and in unguarded moments the truth comes out from his own lips. How does he know it? Through intuition.

During our 'Science and Faith' conference last week, I fielded this question: How do we know there's purpose in the universe? How can I prove it? My response was that purpose isn't something we argue for; it's something we're already aware of. Even the person challenging me believes that human beings have purpose, even if he's not immediately aware of it.

How do we make him see it? I ask him a question which causes the intuition to rise to the surface . For example, if somebody challenges about purpose in life, I'll ask him if he's ever talked anyone out of suicide. Has he ever deplored a young person's 'untimely' death? Has he ever called such a thing tragic? A child dies of a disease. A car full of promising high school seniors out for a night on the town gets hit by a train, and they all perish. Has he ever called such a thing tragic?

Virtually everyone, when faced with a potential suicide, will try to talk the person out of it. Now, here's the question: Why? Why talk someone out of suicide if life has no purpose? Everyone, at some time or another, has shaken his head at the tragedy of an untimely death. Why is it tragic when a six-year-old dies of leukemia, or a car load of high school honor students perishes at a railroad crossing? Why is that tragic? Because an untimely death is one that happens before its time , before a certain purpose is accomplished?

Now the question you must ask yourself is this: 'What religious view makes sense out of the idea that human beings have purpose?

Our reactions to these things--suicide, untimely deaths, etc.--are spontaneous, immediate, and intuitive. Deep down inside we know that each person's life is meant for something. It's not just that they have personal aspirations. A very young child dying of leukemia doesn't have aspirations. We consider it a tragedy for a different reason: The child did not accomplish what she was--watch this--'meant' to accomplish. We're not sure about the specifics of her purpose, but we're sure some purpose was intended, ergo the 'tragedy' of the 'untimely' death. We're so sure of transcendent human purpose that we try to stop people from killing themselves and 'wasting' their lives.

In the same way, we consider it tragic if someone makes a conscious decision (as opposed to being pressed into poverty by circumstance) to be a bum, begging and living under a freeway in cardboard boxes. The more libertarian among us would no doubt acknowledge a person's 'right' to live as he wants, but even the libertarian has a nagging sense that this life is being wasted. By contrast, we look at someone like Mother Theresa or Jonas Salk, and we applaud them for having accomplished something wonderful, having fulfilled something of their purpose in life.

My point is this: How do those observations make any sense if there's no purpose in life? If we have no purpose outside of us, then in what sense is it a waste when a child is struck down in its infancy? In what sense is it a waste when young high school students are killed in an auto accident? In what sense is it a waste when someone with tremendous gifts wiles away his life sitting under a tree or a freeway abutment? Why is that a waste?

If I presented these questions to you outside of a religious context--that is, if you weren't trying to second guess me and protect yourself--your immediate response would be, 'It's obvious! Human beings ought to fulfill their potential. If someone kills himself, he's wasting his life.'

But why would any suicide be tragic, if there were no purpose to life? If there's no purpose, then there's no tragedy, no waste. Yet we intuitively know these things are tragic losses. Therefore, our lives must have some purpose waiting to be discovered and lived.

This is one extended example of all kinds of things we're aware of, things we know intuitively. We haven't thought them through, but our language gives us away.

So, when somebody makes a statement like, 'Prove to me there's purpose in life,' my answer is, 'You already know there's purpose.' He may not know what the purpose is, but he already knows human life is meaningful. We all know that. We know it intuitively.

Now the question you must ask yourself is this: 'What religious view makes sense out of the idea that human beings have purpose? Maybe a handful of them do, and then you have to go further to decide between them. But some religious views don't seem to make any sense out of life at all, and those must be false, because they don't explain the world as it really is.

You see what I've done? Instead of arguing for a Christian point of view, I start with an intuition and I ask questions to get a person in touch with their own intuitive knowledge. Then I ask them to make sense out of it. As a Christian, I don't have that problem. I can make sense out of it. The Bible explains it. The truth it describes fits the real world and resonates with our own deepest intuitions about life.

Digging deeper link:

Intuition a different kind of knowing? http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=26

cs - I'll read your links in detail later, and while I am very happy that you don't take "intuition" to refer to "a guy feeling"--that is, it isn't an emotional thing--you discussion of the issue seems to be a bit fuzzy in some areas. So let me just ask you something directly:

Are you a empiricist or a rationalist? If you aren't familiar with the terms, an empiricist is someone who believes that a person isn't born with any inherent knowledge. They are, to use Thomas Aquinas' words born tabula rasa ("a blank slate"). Everything that we know we learned from experience. Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke would represent moderate empiricists; Hume would be an example of radical empiricism. Rationalists believe that at least some knowledge is inherent. That is, you are just born knowing some things. Plato was an extreme rationalist; Descarte was more moderate in his rationalism, and Chomsky would represent a more contemporary version.

cslewislover wrote:I didn't write this, Jac, I just think it's interesting, especially in view of witnessing to people. I would like to consider your questions further, though, so I'll read the other link in detail and consider what I think or believe about whether we're blank slates or not (I've considered this in the past and I do not believe we're blank slates as far as personality goes, but I'm not sure about knowledge). I did skim the second linked article, and saw that the auther gets into the philosophy more.

OK. I've read the second article, and the author, Greg Koukl, sites Aquinas regarding his concept of "intuition" (a priori knowledge): "Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was referring to this kind of knowledge when he wrote, 'A truth can come into the mind in two ways, namely as known in itself, and as known through another. What is known in itself is like a principle, and is perceived immediately by the mind....It is a firm and easy quality of mind which sees into principles.'"

Besides CS Lewis , he also cites Aristotle: "Some, indeed, demand to have the law proved, but this is because they lack education; for it shows lack of education not to know of what we should require proof, and of what we should not. For it is quite impossible that everything should have a proof; the process would go on to infinity, so there would be no proof..."

He then goes on to apply this to "plain moral facts" (and here he brings up human value, as I was thinking): "An example of a plain moral fact would be, 'Human beings have intrinsic value.' In the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers referred to this truth as 'self-evident.' It needed no defense because it was 'self evidenced,' so to speak, with its justification coming from within, not from without. Upon this foundation they built their case for the Revolution, and we build our case for human rights."

jac wrote:Are you a empiricist or a rationalist? If you aren't familiar with the terms, an empiricist is someone who believes that a person isn't born with any inherent knowledge. They are, to use Thomas Aquinas' words born tabula rasa ("a blank slate"). Everything that we know we learned from experience. Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke would represent moderate empiricists; Hume would be an example of radical empiricism. Rationalists believe that at least some knowledge is inherent. That is, you are just born knowing some things. Plato was an extreme rationalist; Descarte was more moderate in his rationalism, and Chomsky would represent a more contemporary version.

Since Koukl used the concept of "a priori knowledge," I looked that up in relation to "tabula rasa," but didn't get very far, really. I was surprised that neither of the pages on these subjects, at Wikipedia, referred to the other, even though it seems like they are at least a little related. I don't believe we are completely blank slates when it comes to personality or certain innate things; I believe certain morals are innate. Koukl is including those in "a priori knowledge."

I think I'm going to go ahead and pay the yearly fee to get Encylopedia Brittanica online.

Ah, the Aquinas and Aristotle quote helped a lot. Aristotle was referring to first principles, i.e., the law of noncontradiction. If I were to ask you to prove it, how would you do so? It is self evident. In fact, to try to prove it, you must assume it. I would likewise agree that morality can fall under the same line of thought, though not necessarily in ALL cases. But that's another debate.

I don't know if you have ever studied analytical philosophy, but they make a big deal out of this. In that system, all analytical truths would be known intuitively. For instance, take the sentence, "All unmarried men are bachelors." You know that is true, because it is true by definition. Tht is, the term bachelor automatically includes within it, by its nature, the concept of unmarried men. Or again, consider this: A > B, B > C, therefore, A > C. This is intuitively known to be true, for the when you define A as being greater than B, and you define B as being greater than C, then the concept A by its nature includes the concept of it being greater than C. These things are known without any further proof or test.

In light of all of that, I can appreciate what you posted very much, and I do think it is very useful for apologetics. But I wouldn't say it is a different kind of knowledge. I would say it is more the very way in which human beings think. Things become "self-evident." That term can be abused, of course, but if you get people to accept it rightly so, it is a rather powerful tool in talking with skeptics nonbelievers more generally.

Thanks for the article, though. I'm looking forward to reading it in more detail.

(btw, I'm an empiricist, for what it is worth! )

I am pretty sure you are right about intuition being a way of thinknig more than a type of knowledge. If I have understood the term properly, to know something intuitively is to know it by a certain means (directly, without deduction). The thing known (thus, the knowledge itself) is the same regardless of how it is known, be it by deduction or intuition.

As to the issue of innateness, as an empiricist, I don't think we have any innate knowledge. Although, technically, I should rephrase that, because I am empiricst precisely because I don't think we haev any innate knowledge. That includes morals, belief in God, knowledge of the afterlife, etc. With regard to morals, since that is the one you mentioned, I think we have to distinguish between moral objectivism and moral absolutism (a distinction, btw, that will get us a long way in our debates with nontheists). You can believe in one without the other. Moral objectivism only says that morality is not a matter of personal opinion, but it is grounded in a reality outside of one's self. Moral absolutism says that all people agree that A is right and B is wrong.

Often, I think, Christians make the moral argument by an appeal to moral absolutism, as you seem to have done here. And that, I think, comes in no small part from a misunderstanding of Lewis' arguments. Take the murder example. The argument seems to go like this:

1. All cultures across all time regard unjustified killing (however they may define 'unjustifed' within their own culture) as wrong;
2. 'unjustified killing' is the concept we have in mind when we speak of murder;
3. Thus, all cultures have considered murder to be wrong.
4. From this, it follows that murder actually is wrong; iow, morality is objective*

Now, phrased this way, the flaw is obvious. This is just an ad populum fallacy. Just because everyone thinks something is wrong (or right) doesn't make it so. It also conflatse the concepts of "objective" and "universal acceptance." There is much to commend the argument, but it just misses the mark, which is where moral absolutism just misses the mark. Further, it opens us up to counterexamples. If you could find one culture that didn't consider unjustified killing (murder) to be wrong, then the whole argument goes down the toilet.

Better, we should make the argument about the objectivity of morality. The important thing here is that you do NOT have to show that everyone, everywhere believes in any given particular moral value. Indeed, you may never find a single universally agreed upon (that is, absolute) moral value! But that is fine, because that is not what we (or Lewis, I think) are arguing for at all. The argument actually goes as follows:

1. All rational human beings justify their behavior against a "standard of ought";
2. But human beings differ with one another on what "ought" be or not be;
3. Therefore, all rational human beings presuppose their own "standard of ought" is more accurate than those with whom they disagree;
4. From this, it follows that all rational human beings belief in an objective morality, which they expect others to both recognize and adhere to.

Now, I've formulated this, following Lewis, with an epistemological flare (which may be the only way to do it), but it gets us to the same place. Human beings believe in objective morality. One can argue, of course, that just because we believe something doesn't make it the case, and while that is technically true, the bottom line is that all people do believe it, and no amount of philosophy or science can seem to break us of that. Further, if no one, even the most ardent atheists, can consistently live out a nihilism of any kind. It does not seem to be, then, to great a leap to suggest that humans believe in an objective morality precisely because there is an objective morality. If we are able to toss that idea out and accept the utter chaos that comes with it, we are just as rational for throwing out our belief in any other objective reality, i.e., the phyisical sciences. After all, you only have your beliefs about those things, no matter how justified they may be!

So my point, with reference to the innateness of knowledge, is that I do not really care about finding any moral absolutes (I think Christians overstate the case by arguing for them), and even if you find them, I do not think those absolutes are innate. They would be, like everything else, learned behaviors.

But moral objectivity doesn't presuppose an innate knowledge at all. It only presupposes that we have the faculties--that is, we are constituted to be able--to recognize objective reality. We can debate how those faculties work, of course, and that is an issue I am so far unsettled on. Do we have a specific moral sense (which most people seem to believe) that recognizes a particular moral reality? Or is morality, as per Aquinas, actually grounded in reason, and thus learned moreso than recognized (as I tend to accept)? Those are valid debates. But neither presupposes that the knowledge of the morality of an action is in any way innate.

As to your second paragraph, we can also distinguish between instinct (which clearly is not knowledge) and knowledge. You rightly disregard the former. So, in order to answer the question, "Are babies born with knowledge?" we must first answer the question "What is knowledge?" I don't think you can propely answer that question without a well grounded metaphysic, which goes well beyond the scope of this thread. But it does have bearing on the issue of what "we" really are. I suspect you've read K's and my discussion on the nature of the human soul. I, for one, and not a substance dualist. I do not believe that we are really our souls.

I would concede this, in conclusion: I think a substance dualist would have a much better ground on which to accept rationalism (the innateness of ideas) than would a composite dualist such as myself. So before you can answer this question on knowledge, I guess you have to get your metaphysics right.

-------------------
* I'm extrapolating the basis for the minor premise in the moral argument for God's existence:
1. For morality to be objective, God must exist;
2. Morality is objective;
3. Therefore, God exists.

Most are willing to grant the major premise, but challenge the minor. My contention is that many of us misunderstand the minor premise ourselves. We intend to argue for objectivsm in (2), but are actually arguing for absolutism, which nontheists implicitly recognize, and thus the endless debate.