God became man to save us from sin, not skepticism
with Theological Epistemology Course Lecture 4
In A Secular Age, Charles Taylor argued that the defining feature of our age was not the lack of belief in God, but that we encounter a world in which belief in God is optional. This makes unbelief much easier than it was a couple of centuries ago. But it also puts believers on the defensive, with churches feeling the need to shore up the confidence of their congregants, and individual Christians searching for certainty.
Under these circumstances, the whole of the Christian faith is liable to be reframed in epistemological terms. The predicament of the lost is not primarily that they are sinners, alienated from God, but that they are skeptics. The faith by which we are delivered is not a change of our wills, leading us to repent and trust in Christ, but a change of our minds, leading us to believe that God exists, and the other doctrines of Christianity.
In my seminary education, as in other theologically Reformed contexts, much was made of the “noetic effects of sin”: The effects of sin on the mind. Unbelievers, it was said, are led to worldviews like materialism, atheism, and moral relativism by the power of sin. Accordingly, it was useless to engage in philosophy or reasoning to change their worldview. Only conversion could lead people to believe that God exists, that there is moral truth, and that they have fallen short of it. Only salvation could save people from skepticism. Only salvation could work in someone a Christian worldview.
But the Christian faith did not come about with modern skepticism. In countries, and for centuries, in which all people shared a “Christian worldview,” the plight of man was the same: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him” (Romans 1:21). The authors of the Bible were much less concerned than we are that people arrive at knowledge of God. They were much more concerned about the state of our hearts with respect to God.
The Bible does not assume that human beings know nothing of the world or God. It does not assume that human beings are in a state of radical Cartesian skepticism and uncertainty, from which we must be delivered. It assumes that human beings know God and ignore him anyway.
One of the tasks of faithful Christian witness is, therefore, to remind people of what they know, of the things that are “plain to them.” In fact, this is the chief task of the natural theologian. Such reminders, in the form of arguments for God’s existence, observation of modern moral decay, or description of the natural order, do not produce conversion. But they don’t need to; they point human beings to the God who is there, reminding them of their predicament.
The rest is up to God.
Would you like to understand the revolution in modern philosophy that led, if unintentionally, to contemporary skepticism and unbelief? Then check out the attached lecture, from my new course Theological Epistemology. In the lecture, we consider Descartes’ new kind of skepticism and his new kind of argument for God, designed to quiet modern intellectual anxiety: The epistemological argument for God’s existence.
Here’s a two-minute clip, giving you a taste of the lecture:
Lecture 4: The Epistemology of Modern and Contemporary Arguments for God
Course Syllabus
Previous Lectures
Contents
Descartes’ Epistemological Argument for God’s Existence
Other Arguments for God’s Existence in Modern Philosophy
Arguments for God’s Existence in Contemporary Philosophy
1. Descartes’ Epistemological Argument for God’s Existence
Descartes’ radical doubt inaugurates a new kind of philosophy which continues to this day, with monumental significance for the arguments for God’s existence. In Descartes’ account, human beings are naturally in a position of radical uncertainty and skepticism; only God can deliver us from skepticism. With the accuracy of our senses called into question, the empirical arguments for God’s existence take a serious knock; and the rational arguments must carry a heavier weight.