Loving Wisdom

A Guide to Philosophy and Christian Faith

Paul Copan

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781467458252
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

A guide to Christian philosophy that engages with the biblical story

As human beings, we all qualify as philosophers, and Paul Copan contends that we take a position of trust (faith) shaped by philosophical stances but also personal heart commitments (worldviews). In this thoroughly revised and expanded second edition of Loving Wisdom, Copan explores philosophy of religion from a distinctively evangelical Christian perspective—biblically grounded, informed by apologetics, and engaging with questions about universal human longings.

Copan presents a distinctively and deliberately biblical philosophy of religion in Loving Wisdom, addressing a wide range of topics and questions as they arise in the metanarrative of scripture. He acknowledges the difficulties, mystery, and disagreements in "religion, " while attempting to show how the Christian faith does a much more adequate job of responding to a wide range of challenges as well as addressing our deepest human yearnings. With discussion questions for each chapter and an accessible approach, Loving Wisdom is ideal for the classroom or small groups.

Part II

CREATION

O LORD, how manifold are your works!
In wisdom have you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.

—Psalm 104:24 ESV

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power
and divine nature, have been clearly seen.

—Romans 1:20

15Moving toward God:
Reasoning, Imagining, Seeking

The heavens are telling of the glory of God.

—Psalm 19:1

The philosopher Immanuel Kant was struck by “the starry heavens above” and “the moral law within” as pointers to God. Yet the late philosopher of religion John Hick insisted that the universe is “religiously ambiguous.” So much for any attempt to “prove” the existence of God!¹ Even Kant argued that, despite the seemingly persuasive arguments for God, equally compelling opposing arguments are available—what he called “antinomies.” And aren’t there philosophers who insist that, if God exists, he hides himself quite well? Why isn’t he more obvious?

In this chapter, we consider not only God’s hiddenness but also the role of arguments for God’s existence, prayer, the will, and other such matters.

DIVINE HIDDENNESS, THE WILL, AND “SPECTATOR KNOWLEDGE”

Evidence and Divine Obviousness

Why is God hidden? Why doesn’t he make himself more obvious, revealing himself to everyone with signs and wonders? Perhaps God should have stamped “Made by Yahweh” on every cell and atom, on every tree leaf, and on every heavenly body. After all, doesn’t God want everyone to be saved and none to perish (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9)?

We mentioned earlier that if God exists and has designed human beings for relationship with himself, then we would expect that indicators of God would be widely available or accessible. Perhaps divinely placed evidences around us and our inner hardwiring make it easier for us to believe in God. This has been called the wide accessibility principle.

But given that a loving divine-human relationship must be uncoerced, “forced love” is a contradiction in terms. We could understand that evidence for God could be easily reinterpreted or resisted. Call this the easy resistibility principle.²

Blaise Pascal—of “Pascal’s Wager” fame—encapsulates both of these two principles in his book Pensées (Thoughts). God is willing to reveal himself to those who seek him with all their heart, but he remains hidden from those who flee him with all their heart: “He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.”³

Think of a radio dial: when it’s not properly tuned in to receive frequency transmissions, all we get is static. Likewise, failure to seek God intentionally—with all our heart (Jer. 29:13)—will render us more susceptible to the static and distortion; this will obscure our accurately perceiving God. As the late singer Keith Green put it, “You’re so proud of saying you’re a seeker, but why are you searching in the dark? You won’t find a thing until you soften your heart.”⁴

Think about it: Why should God reveal himself to those utterly unwilling to taste and see his goodness? Why should God waste powerful or even perfectly adequate evidence on those who refuse to submit to him as the Cosmic Authority? Even in his own hometown of Nazareth, Jesus refused to do miracles because of the locals’ unbelief (Matt. 13:58). Why entertain them with divine pyrotechnics when they don’t even care about the direction in which those signs point? No wonder Jesus refused to perform a miracle for the curious Herod, who then “treated him with contempt and mocked him” (Luke 23:7–11). Those who demand signs set themselves up as the authority, demanding that God perform while they sit back and evaluate whether they should respond to the show God has just put on for them. Even if we had amassed mountains of evidence for God, that wouldn’t guarantee that we would love and trust him.

When it comes to trust in God, miracles can be a means of encouraging faith: “these [signs have been] written [down] so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ . . . and . . . have life through his name” (John 20:31). But when it comes to God, evidence can be overrated—as though this guarantees trust in God. The demons have plenty of evidence for God’s existence, but they hate God (James 2:19). After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11), Jesus’s opponents sought to kill not only Jesus but also his resuscitated friend (John 12:10). No wonder Jesus affirmed that even if someone comes back from the dead, the obstinate person won’t be convinced (Luke 16:31).

Personal Knowledge

Simply observing evidence without a willingness to appropriate it and to realign one’s life accordingly reveals that the problem is moral and personal, not evidential. In fact, it’s possible that the more apparent God’s presence may be, the more one may come to hate God. Agnostic philosopher of science Michael Ruse commented: “What I dread is that God might give me what I need rather than what I want.”⁵

As we saw earlier about Mortimer Adler, to simply stockpile evidence for God’s existence is incomplete without a willingness to embrace God as my Lord and my God (John 20:28). Evidence without a readiness of will only removes God further from us (John 7:17).

The kind of knowledge God is interested in isn’t detached knowledge but rather personal knowledge—an I-You kind of knowledge. Detached knowledge is not personal knowledge, which goes beyond “spectator evidence”—believing that “God is”—to actually trusting him as one who “rewards those who seek him” (Heb. 11:6 ESV).⁶ The Christian philosopher Paul Moser rightly warns that arguments for God’s existence “often leave their inquirers without an authoritative volitional challenge.”⁷

Our dedication to seeking God or being willing to see with new eyes can fade as we age. There is something to that saying about not being able to teach an old dog new tricks. As psychiatrist M. Scott Peck observed: “By the end of middle age most people have given up the effort. They feel certain that their maps are complete and their Weltanschauung [worldview] is correct (indeed even sacrosanct), and they are no longer interested in new information. . . . Only a relative and fortunate few continue until the moment of death exploring the mystery of reality, ever enlarging and refining and redefining their understanding of the world and what is true.”⁸

It’s not too late to call out to God at any stage of life. In fact, according to agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny, “One thing seems clear. There is no reason why someone who is in doubt about the existence of God should not pray for help and guidance on this topic as in other matters.” It’s like calling out if you’re lost in a cave or stranded on a mountainside, even though you may not be heard. But you may be heard. Likewise, calling out to God is a rational act even if you’re not sure he exists.⁹

THEISTIC “PROOFS” VERSUS GOOD REASONS OR POINTERS

Consistency and the Demand for Proof

After I had spoken to the Philomathean Society—a debate club at Union College (NY)—a young man came up to me with a challenge: “Prove to me that God exists.” I responded, “Well, what would you take as an acceptable level of proof?” The question seemed to throw him off-balance a bit. After a long pause, he admitted, “I’m not sure. I guess I’ve never thought about that before.”

In our day, the word prove is certainly overused and abused. For many, “proof” means “absolute”—without the possibility of alternative explanations or possibilities. It means mathematical certainty of the 2 + 2 = 4 variety—no wiggle room permitted. But so often those taking this approach don’t live up to their own standards. How many beliefs do they claim to know with that same level of absoluteness? No doubt they are holding the Christian to a higher standard of provability than they themselves follow for their own beliefs.

In conversations, it can be helpful to keep this in mind. Are critics more charitable with their views but more stingy with yours? Do they say, “Well, it’s remotely possible,” for themselves but, “Give me absolute proof,” for you? Urge them to apply the golden rule of skepticism to their own methods: “Apply the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs as you do to another’s.” Or we could make it the golden rule of charitability: “Cut slack for another’s beliefs the way you cut slack for your own.” Otherwise, the situation would look more like a case of “heads I win, tails you lose.”

As we’ve seen, we take a lot of commonsense beliefs for granted that can’t be proven the way many insist they should. These bedrock beliefs are properly basic; they arise out of our everyday experiences. Why deny what seems so obvious to us—especially if the alternative doesn’t seem even remotely plausible? We should treat those kinds of beliefs as innocent until proven guilty.

As we’ve seen, reasons for belief in God are available both through rational arguments and our deepest longings (freedom from guilt, the longing for significance). We can think of them in terms of clues, pointers, signposts, indicators, and echoes of God’s voice (Ps. 19:2)—evidences that are available to those who seek. But, as we’ve seen, this requires an engaged will and a humble heart.

God’s Two Books

God has specially, savingly revealed himself in his written Word and in his incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. Yet God has another “book”—not just his Word of special revelation but also his book of works, his general revelation. God’s publicly available self-revelation of his existence and nature (“natural revelation”) is found in creation, conscience, cognition (reason), and commonsense experience—and even in various coincidences in our lives. These can be turned into pointers to God’s existence and nature (“natural theology”). The goal of these arguments is to show that their conclusions are more plausible or reasonable than their denials; these reasons for God offer the better or best explanations for important features of our universe or human experience.¹⁰

The heavens declare God’s glory (Ps. 19:1–2), and the creation reveals God’s “invisible attributes”—namely, “His eternal power and divine nature,” and this renders people “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). The Creator “did not leave Himself without witness,” doing good and giving “rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). Mere intellectual acknowledgment of God’s existence is inadequate. Rather we are to “honor Him as God” and “give [him] thanks” (Rom. 1:21). Also, Paul told the Athenians that God is “not far from each one of us” and that all without exception are commanded to repent. This suggests that God’s initiating grace has been provided for every person to actually fulfill God’s command (Acts 17:27–30).

“THICK” AND “THIN” THEISM

So where do we take this fact of God’s general revelation? When we talk about arguments for God’s existence, critics might reply, “This doesn’t prove the God of the Bible,” or, “This doesn’t show that God is all-powerful or all-knowing.” We can readily agree.

In the famous 1947 BBC debate between atheist Bertrand Russell and Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston, the discussion began with a provisional definition of God rather than a full-blown one, and they started to work from there:

COPLESTON: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term “God.” I presume that we mean a supreme personal being—distinct from the world and creator of the world. Would you agree—provisionally at least—to accept this statement as the meaning of the term “God”?

RUSSELL: Yes, I accept this definition.¹¹

Speaking from a Christianized context, Thomas Aquinas’s arguments for God—“the Five Ways”—end with conclusions such as “this all m...