Light on the Bible

A Rationale for Believing in God

Yes, belief in God is both logical and reasonable. Tim, a 14-year-old Boy Scout, once confessed to his scoutmaster that he did not believe in God. Sadly, this disqualified the…

Yes, belief in God is both logical and reasonable.

Tim, a 14-year-old Boy Scout, once confessed to his scoutmaster that he did not believe in God. Sadly, this disqualified the boy, who was well on his way to becoming an Eagle Scout, from further participation. As the scoutmaster probed with leading questions, he learned that the boy found the concept of God illogical. Wisely striving to restore the boy’s faith, the scoutmaster joined Tim in discovering reasons for believing in God.

Like the young boy scout, many critical thinkers do not believe in God (Grewal, 2012). Upon analysis, they find no intellectual basis for faith in a higher power. Perhaps those decisions are based on a shortcoming in recognizing the appropriate logic and evidence.
Ample reason and evidence support belief in God. This paper will explore that rationale from the perspective of humanity’s intrinsic need for belief, the rationality of the act, the understanding that belief in a higher power does not dictate details, and that believing can be evidentially based.

An Intrinsic Need for God

In 2022, the United Nations Population Fund estimated that over 8 billion people live on earth (World Population Dashboard, 2023). Everyone has fundamental human needs, from physiological to self-actualization (McLeod, 2007). With needs broken into the categories of those that address deficiencies and those for growth, McLeod explains that the requirement to meet those needs in a specific order or by a specific means is nonexistent. The individual will seek to fulfill their needs with the resources available.
Faith is a resource that fulfills emotional needs. Primordial among human emotional needs is that of belief. Leading theorists and empirical researchers view religious development from an evolutionary standpoint without a predisposition toward an extant creator. In their work on The Emergence and Evolution of Religion, authors Turner, Maryanski, Peterson, and Geertz posit that human religion evolved from second-order emotions of conscience and morality that ultimately underpin the human need for religion (Turner et al., 2018, p. 90).

Pursuing mythological purpose finds its roots at the beginning of human existence in proto-myths (d’Huy, 2016). Beyond basic emotional needs, human beings are inquisitive, intelligent creatures. As such, they often seek answers to existential questions. For instance: Where do we come from? How did we get here? What is our purpose in life? What happens when we die? Perhaps these questions drive emotional distress and logically fulfill the need for religion. Alternately, the quest for these answers may rely upon the nature of humanity at its core. According to Julien d’Huy, writing for Scientific American, psychologist Carl Jung further proposed that “Myths are first and foremost psychic phenomena that reveal the nature of the soul.” In other words, humans need to pursue an understanding of higher purpose and power because the drive for faith is written into their genetics.

All societies have a religion of some sort (Ambrosino, 2019). Expanding upon the individual’s drive for understanding, a shared belief in God supports communal living, and the subsequent agreement upon consistent values forms the basis for society. Professor Scott Atran of the University of Michigan argues that religion is necessary to prevent societal upheaval, acting as a palliative against socio-political unrest (Atran, 2018). Karl Marx considered religion to be the “opiate of the masses,” which supports Atran’s conclusion. However, Marx’s idea of religion assigns mal intent to the purposes of religion instead of a goal for the common good.

The psychological, emotional, genetic, and societal causes of religion all contribute to humanity’s underlying need for religion, faith, and belief in a higher power. Regardless of whether that higher power exists is another question, but the rationale for belief in God can be established by nothing other than the needs that the belief fulfills. Believing in God is rational because it is good for one’s health, good for society, and the need is built into human genetics. Nevertheless, those seeking absolute truth require more proof to be convinced intellectually.

Believing in God is a Rational Act

Western minds fall upon logic to explain the unknown. The existence of God is no exception. God is supernatural, making belief in God challenging to accept. Subsequently, many deny God’s existence, believing their conclusion was reasonable. However, a decision regarding the rationality of the existence of God requires a more thorough examination of how that decision is reached, delving into the world of philosophy.

Well-meaning people may suggest that you cannot prove a universal negative. On the surface, this seems rational. Amateur theists with good intentions have stated that you cannot prove there is no God on that premise. Until you search every corner of the universe, you have not exhausted the possibility that God exists. Since searching through an infinite universe is impractical, you cannot disprove that there is a God. Unfortunately, such fallacious thinking is easily countered by simply examining the statement, “One cannot prove a universal negative,” which is a universal negative (Sorenson, 2022).

Steven Hales, writing in the journal Think, believes that the use of this line of reasoning stems from either an acknowledgment that one’s argument is fallible or that there is a desperate desire to continue believing a statement despite the evidence against it (Hales, 2005, p. 111). Instead of the approach of a universal negative, a better approach must be taken that Hales cites in his work: inductive reasoning. The purpose of an inductive argument is to present a probable conclusion. There is no requirement that the argument exhaustively removes all possibility of disbelief, but simply that it be reasonable. Following the model and guidance provided by Dr. Hales, the following inductive argument is reasonable and rational (Hales, 2005, p. 110):

Still, there is the question of whether this argument is adequate. One may argue that if God exists but is not fully knowable, how can God be proven to exist? This adaptation of a logical argument is called the “Knowability Paradox.” While it may imply a paradox, the logical conclusion is that if there are actual unknown truths, there are unknowable truths. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Roy Sorenson notes that some philosophers simplify the statement to say that there are unknowable truths because they logically concluded that there is an omniscient being (Sorenson, 2022).

With the philosophical possibility that God exists and that He is unknowable, we must explore what can be known about God to define an argument for the truth. Truth should be based on evidence, whereas faith seems to be a mystical religious concept (Lennox, 2013, p. 7). Nevertheless, as John Lennox points out in his talk on Miracles, the religious and atheists must accept facts on faith at some level to support their worldview. Notwithstanding the importance of faith, he states that Christianity maintains and is substantially supported by evidence (Lennox, 2013, p. 8).

Typically, attacks on faith come from its juxtaposition with science. Some claim that science is the only way to know and understand the truth. While some may anthropomorphize the two concepts as enemies, they are not naturally contradictory. Indeed, the two concepts can not only co-exist but corroborate each other. Science is exceptionally good at explaining how things are done but is wholly inadequate when exploring metaphysical concepts. It cannot tell us what cannot be known (Lennox, 2013, pp. 8-9). Both science and faith are required for a complete picture of truth.
Philosophically, God is unknowable, but inductive reasoning can prove His existence. He is a supernatural entity because he is unknowable, which is in no way contradictory to philosophical thought. God is outside the scope of science because God cannot be fully known, and science is limited to only that which can be known. We must conclude that, philosophically, belief in God is rational.

Reasons for Believing

The concept of God as creator is more straightforward for some to accept than a God who demands specific values or patterns of living. Obtaining the benefits of a relationship with God requires acknowledgment of His character and acceptance of His conditions of right living. Examining the logical arguments for acceptance of that living standard may not convince one to change their values. However, it may be enough to conclude that belief in God is rational.

“First Cause” is a principle that traces the cause of all things back to a “Prime Mover.” Initially developed by Aristotle, this philosophy implies the existence of God. Later, Thomas Aquinas used “First Cause” as an argument for one of his “Five Ways” of proving the existence of God (contributors, New World Encyclopedia, 2017). While Aristotle believed that God and the universe were co-eternal, Muslim philosophers and mathematicians later developed the premise into the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument states that: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.” (Stroebel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, pp. 97-98) Logically, for the universe to exist as a created thing, it must have a creator, even if that creator’s character is in dispute.

The Apostle Paul gives further reasons for belief that delve into the character of God as judge and the consequences of disbelief. Specifically, Paul, who claimed to have had direct revelation from Jesus Christ, stated that if what he preached about Christ being raised from the dead was untrue, then his preaching was useless. Further, he would be among the people most pitied. However, if he was right as he believed, then eternal life is at stake (New International Version, 2011, pp. 1 Cor. 15:12-28). Without belief, all are doomed to eternal death (New International Version, 2011, p. Rom. 6:23).

A commonly given reason to reject the idea of God is that God’s existence is a myth made up by others. Some use this reason to effectively discount evidence other than that acquired by direct experience with God. Barring that direct contact, consider how a supreme being would reveal himself to humanity. One might expect records of conversations with God, monuments dedicated to divine events, miracles with implausible explanations except by God’s intervention, changed lives, and consistent values and morality that cross-cultural norms. Further, one would expect corroboration outside of a religion’s holy books. These records and their confirmation abound with highly reliable historical records from numerous witnesses.

Without concern for the exact character and demands of a supreme being, sound reasoning indicates God’s existence as the Creator. First Cause and the Kalam Cosmological argument provide inescapable logic that we must accept something as an eternally self-existing creator. Paul’s argument regarding the stakes of belief versus disbelief provides a sound motive. The knowledge that Biblical sources are the best preserved and most reliable ancient documents about man’s supernatural experience with God must lend credence to these eyewitness accounts of God’s revelation.

Evidence for God

While far from an exhaustive list, evidence for God abounds, including the world’s existence, testimony of others, and miracles.
Creation itself is the foundation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument mentioned above. While it is a subcategory of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument includes evidence of naturally occurring order and design throughout creation. In layman’s terms, the cosmological argument states that if there is a creation, there must be a creator. The teleological argument argues that there must be a designer where there is design. Taken one step further, design implies intelligence, which must have a purpose, hence the use of the prefix “telos,” which means “end,” “goal,” or “purpose” (Grudem, 1994, p. 143).

Eyewitness evidence must be corroborated because external factors can highly influence it. The Bible was written by approximately 40 men over 15 centuries in a compilation of 66 books with a consistent message proclaiming one true God. (Who were the authors of the books of the Bible?, n.d.) The reliability of these witnesses is questioned by Lee Stroebel, who examines the credibility of the New Testament authors with eight tests: intention, ability, character, consistency, bias, cover-up, corroboration, and whether they were adverse witnesses. The results weighed overwhelmingly in favor of these men being trustworthy witnesses who believed their testimony so strongly that they were put to death for their convictions (Stroebel, The Case for Christ, 1998, pp. 38-53).

Perhaps the most vital witness in the Bible is that of Jesus Christ. His existence was confirmed by an extra-Biblical historian, Flavius Josephus, in his work, The Antiquities, completed in the first century A.D. (Stroebel, The Case for Christ, 1998, p. 78). While all accounts of his words are secondhand, Jesus declares that there is a God and claims to be God for which his opponents attempted to stone him (New International Version, 2011, p. John 10:30). The classic “trilemma” presented by author C.S. Lewis states that Jesus’ claims must reveal him as a liar, lunatic or Lord (Lewis, 1980, p. 52) For those unwilling to declare Christ to be a liar or a lunatic, they must accept Him at His word.

Miracles authenticate the gospel and give evidence that God is truly at work. They help people in need and remove hindrances to people’s ministries. Ultimately, they glorify God (Grudem, 1994, pp. 359-361). Indeed, the Bible contains many accounts of miracles, and the book itself can be considered a miracle by the means it has been preserved throughout history. Arguably, miracles continue today. Any that gives credence to the supernatural possibility of miracles must also give credit to the supernatural force behind them – God.

God’s fingerprint is evident not only in the existence of the universe, our planet, and humanity but also in the well-orchestrated design and delicate balance required to maintain them. This is the sign of an intelligent creator proclaimed by numerous witnesses, both biblically and extra-biblically, throughout history. The testimony of Jesus Christ proclaims himself as God and miracles throughout the ages are attributed to Him.

It is appropriate for an individual to have a belief system with faith in a higher power. Further, this unifies society when believers share a belief system. The innate human need to believe in God ultimately benefits our personal and communal well-being. Science and philosophy complement one another, concluding that believing in God is rational and does not violate their tenets. The absence of this belief is illogical, as given by the arguments for First Cause, the consequences of disbelief, and the extent of well-preserved eyewitness testimony of God’s existence. Creation, an abundance of reliable witnesses, and miracles reveal evidence for God’s existence and character.

While his reluctance was caused by a struggle to understand God’s character, the Boy Scout, Tim, eventually came to believe in God. Needing a rational understanding that he felt was scientific and logical, the Kalam Cosmological argument convinced him. Tim became a believer in God and eventually an Eagle Scout, who is now on a lifelong journey to understand the nature of God.
Ordinary people, critical thinkers, and Boy Scouts all have plentiful reasons for a rationale to believe in God.

References