Aware Beings Produce Aware Beings: The Argument from Consciousness

A particularly interesting argument for God’s existence stems from the human consciousness. When a person describes the human consciousness, one is describing not only the awareness of a particular person, but the mind and will also. Placed together, consciousness could refer to the human soul. The existence of the human consciousness dictates the existence of God. The argument from consciousness is teleological in nature as it demonstrates that consciousness must stem from an eternal consciousness, known as God. This article will examine one particular argument from consciousness and will seek to demonstrate that such an argument is valid.

Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli offer the following argument as an example for the argument from consciousness:

“1.       We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

2.        Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.

3.        Not blind chance.

4.        Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence” (Kreeft and Tacelli 1994, 66).

Let’s consider each of the premises of Kreeft and Tacelli’s argument.

We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

In other words, we can know that we are conscious beings because we are aware of our surroundings and have the reason to understand our awareness. While animals have an awareness, the awareness of human beings to rationalize, figure, and discover the universe far exceeds that of the animal kingdom. In addition, the universe is intelligible meaning that it is knowable and is so that discoveries can be made. Thus, this premise notes the existence of intelligible creatures and an intelligible universe.

 Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds…are products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.

There is an either/or situation at hand. Either the universe and its intelligible beings (i.e. conscious beings) came about by a supreme intelligence or their existence transpired due to blind chance. This brings to mind what I would like to call the “eternal necessity.” The eternal necessity dictates that something eternal exists. Either there is an eternal universe that has the ability to do conscious things (which seemingly is an oxymoron), or there is an eternal conscious God who brought about the materialistic universe into being, or the universe and God are one.[1] Some philosophies and worldviews, such as pantheism and panentheism, would claim that the universe was God. Yet such a notion still designates the existence of God. So, for the benefit of simplicity, we shall only look at the first two options. Either there is an eternal conscious God who brought forth consciousness or the inanimate forces have the ability to bring about consciousness by blind chance.

 Not blind chance.

One of the critical questions pertaining to the argument from consciousness is found in the third premise. Could consciousness have stemmed from non-conscious material? Evidence seems to reject the notion that blind chance could have produced conscious beings. Thomas Nagel, an agnostic philosopher admits as much in his book Mind and Cosmos as he writes pertaining to his skepticism of naturalism that “My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense” (Nagel 2012, 7). J. P. Moreland adds that a strong objection can be made against physicalism—that is, the belief that the material world is all that exists—in that “it is just obvious that mental and physical properties are different from each other, and the physicalists have not met the burden of proof required to overturn these deeply held ingrained intuitions” (Moreland 2014, 100). In addition, there is great incredulity to the notion that sheer nothingness could accidentally exist, could accidentally form physical laws to order itself, could accidentally spring forth galaxies, could accidentally spring forth planets with the proper environment for life, and could accidentally spring forth life itself, and could accidentally spring forth consciousness. Such a notion exists on the level in believing that this article is the byproduct of an explosion of a library with all the letters of all the books falling into place. It is beyond incredulous; it is insanity to believe such a thing. Therefore, the evidence does not support consciousness stemming from mere blind chance.

Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

Perhaps the greatest benefit from the argument from consciousness is the clear understanding that consciousness stems from consciousness. This brings to mind the argument from biological parents. While I have never met most of the readers of this post, I can make one grand assumption. The reader’s existence dictates the necessary existence of the reader’s biological mother and father. The reader did not self-start, but was the byproduct of two conscious beings (i.e. a mother and a father). Consciousness began from consciousness. Conscious beings produce other conscious beings. If such is the case then, if pushed far enough back into the past, human consciousness must stem from an eternal intelligible consciousness known as God. It has been demonstrated that blind chance is incredulous in answering the existence of conscious beings. Yet, it is certainly rational to posit that an eternal Mind gave life to all conscious beings.

Conclusion

In John’s Gospel, one finds the great truth in that “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3).[2] The existence of all things owes their existence to God. Such is especially true for conscious beings. The argument from consciousness offers the common sensical view that life stems from life. Since life stems from life, then one should naturally see the necessity for God’s existence as God is eternally living and the great imparter of life in this world and in the world to come.

Sources Cited:

Kreeft, Peter, and Robert K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994.

Moreland, J. P. The Soul: How We Know It’s Real and Why It Matters. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014.

Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

© August 3, 2015. Brian Chilton.

[1] This shall be the topic of a future article.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture for this article comes from the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).

Bell’s Quest to Atheism; Brian’s Quest to Christian Theism

To be honest, I was anticipating another topic to begin 2015. However, the story of Ryan Bell has captivated me. Ryan Bell is the former pastor of Seventh Day Adventist Church, former professor of Fuller Theological Seminary, and former professor of Azusa Pacific University. Bell is more popularly known as the pastor who took a year off from God. Unsurprisingly, Bell announced in the article “An End, and a New Beginning” on Patheos.com that he now identifies himself as a “humanist and an atheist…of the agnostic variety” (Bell 2014, “An End, and a New Beginning,” Patheos.com). In the article, Bell provides 3 in-depth reasons as to why he left Christian theism for agnosticism. Some reading this article may be surprised to find that this writer entered a similar quest. For seven years, I was out of the ministry due to unresolved questions and doubts pertaining to the faith. During this time, I was at times a quasi-agnostic. Yet, I came back to the Christian faith because of certain evidences that led me to a stronger faith. This article will briefly examine the reasons that Bell provided that led him away from faith, will provide rebuttals to Bell’s claims, and then will provide some of the reasons why this writer came back to faith.

Bell’s Reasons for Rejecting God

Science and Social Evolution the Way to Understand Religion?

First, Bell claims that he came from a “Christian tradition that flatly refuses to acknowledge the discoveries of science” (Bell 2014, Patheos). Perhaps the issue that Bell has is not so much with God, but the ideology of a particular strain of Christianity that distrusts science. However, this is certainly not true of the vast number of Christians who believe that faith and science are complementary (i.e. Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, William Lane Craig, etc.). Bell admits as much, but then goes on to claim that “I see no reason for this approach at this time” (Bell 2014, Patheos). But why? If this quest was about searching for the truth, it seems like a grand step to exorcise God while not considering all the options on the table. It seems as if Bell has proverbially “thrown out the baby with the bathwater.”

Bell goes on to claim that “biological evolution accounts for our present physical existence, the history of human social evolution is a much better way of understanding religion. The multitude of religious and spiritual beliefs…and the way that those ideas have changed over time convinces me that God has not created humanity. Humanity has created God” (Bell 2014, Patheos.com). He goes on to say that religion has “served a vital evolutionary purpose, uniting people around the common good” (Bell 2014, Patheos). However, how does this disprove God’s existence? Scientists have various ideas concerning how the universe came into existence, does this indicate that the universe never came into existence because there are various beliefs concerning the beginning? People have differing ideas on most everything. There are people who deny that the Holocaust did not occur. Does this indicate that the event never took place because there are various beliefs concerning the Holocaust? Or take science itself. There is an even deeper flaw to Bell’s reasoning. He claimed that not everyone accepted science, yet Bell beliefs in the authority of science. If there are various beliefs concerning science, does science lose its integrity, or worse yet, does that indicate that science is non-existent? Certainly not! Thus, Bell’s first evidence against God fails miserably.

Multiplicity of Religions; an Argument against Theism?

Bell’s second evidence greatly resembles the first that was given. Bell claims that since there are various beliefs pertaining to God that God must be a human invention and not a real entity. Again, this argument is fallacious. Bell desires consensus. Yet if the Bible is to be believed; from the very beginning of time Satan has tried to press people to ask “Did God actually say” (Genesis 3:1) this or that.[1] Thus, if Satan really exists; one would expect a montage of beliefs concerning God. Nevertheless, Bell’s desire for a global consensus is, in reality, a poor argument against God’s existence. For if a person required a global consensus to require the reality of something, then few things could ever be proven to exist, if anything at all. Yet, that the majority of people in history have believed in the divine counters Bell’s own argument. Bell does not favor the fact that many religions exist and that all of them cannot be correct. Yet, Bell has taken the position that all of them are incorrect, which does not escape Bell’s conundrum. In turn, Bell criticizes Christianity’s exclusive claim while holding to an exclusive claim that all theistic religions are incorrect. Do you see the philosophical problem?

Psychology and Religion

The third evidence presented by Bell is the strongest, and most telling, of the three. Bell claims that psychology provides the greatest problem for belief in God. According to Bell, “We fear nothing more than our own mortality. But what if we could live forever…What if the reward for a life well lived is eternal life in paradise? Such a reward could be used to keep the masses in line and consolidate power in the hands of those that hold the secrets to immortality” (Bell 2014, Patheos.com). The problem with Bell’s argument is that he really does not consider any evidence that the afterlife could really exist. A great deal of evidence for the afterlife exists from the mounting evidence of near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences. (See the works of Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland in this area). Furthermore, Bell does not consider the great evidence that exists for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus really rose from the dead on the third day, an event which was at one time central to Bell’s faith, as it is central to all Christians’ faith, then humanity has been given clear evidence that life exists beyond the scope of this mere mortal life. In reality, one must ask what the real value of life could be if one only lives a few years and drifts into eternal nothingness, never to be remembered after a generation has passed. Does anything hold lasting value? Some will claim that love is a lasting virtue. But in reality, without God, nothing including love holds any value. How could anything hold value without God?

Brian’s Reasons for Accepting God

I have many more reasons for accepting the existence of God, as a cumulative case brought me back to faith. However, I will limit my reasons to four.

The Existence of Anything

The fact that anything exists demands God’s existence. Some will argue, “Well, where did God come from?” But, to ask such a question is a categorical mistake. The creation as we know it is finite. Creation had an absolute beginning, as demonstrated by the Big Bang Theory, the BVG Theorem, and the laws of thermodynamics. At the beginning of our universe, no physical laws existed or anything of the like. However, our universe is here. Some will point to the physical attributes of the beginning of the universe as the only answer that suffices. However, those physical attributes require an explanation for their existence. Eventually, if one is honest, one is forced to deal with the conundrum that either an eternal universe exists or an eternal God. Since physical things are finite, the only logical conclusion one could hold is that an eternal God exists. In fact, if an eternal God created the finite universe, one would expect to find conditions favorable for a universe to come into being. Thus, that the atheist claims that the universe could pop into being is only possible if an eternal God in fact brought the universe into being. Therefore, the atheist’s argument is null and void in this regard.

The Functionality of Everything

Many atheists will claim that evolution is the answer to all things. Yet, if evolution is true, then such a process demands an explanation. Why is there such a process? Why would such a process be prone to provide life? If one is to be honest; all physical laws, functions, and the like require an explanation for their existence. The multiple cosmological constants found in the universe demonstrate great design. In fact, the world and the universe operate with great functionality. Such functionality demonstrates the necessity of God’s existence.

The Transformational Power of God

One cannot deny the transformational power that God has had on generations of individuals. Many have experienced the miraculous. Others have experienced a complete transformation in their lives. In fact, my wife can tell the days when I have taken an appropriate amount of time with God from the days that I haven’t. She has noted that my disposition is much better when I have had time with God. In addition, lives have been transformed by dreams, visions, NDEs, and experiences with God which cannot be simply tossed away as one’s imagination. Lives have been saved from suicide because of the transformative power of God. Have there been those who have wrongfully attributed something to God for political and/or personal gain? Sure! But, that does not negate the multiple authentic experiences throughout history that people have had with God. So while the image of Christ in someone’s pudding may not be attributed to a miraculous working of God, one could not say that such miracles never happen. (See Craig Keener’s two volume work entitled Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts for more on this issue).

The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

Lastly, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth stands as a grand example of the power of God. If Jesus of Nazareth really raised from the dead as the early Christians confessed, then humanity has clear cut evidence not only that God exists, but that God is a very personal and relational God. I will not provide all the evidences that exist for the resurrection of Jesus, as I have provided those evidences elsewhere. But if one examines the evidence, one will be greatly surprised at the amount of positive evidence that suggests that Jesus of Nazareth really did walk out of that tomb on the first Easter Sunday. (See Gary Habermas and Mike Licona’s book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus for more information).

Conclusion

We have evaluated the claims of Ryan Bell. I, for one, have found Bell’s evidences against God wanting. But, it is in my estimation that Bell has suffered some personal tragedies or perhaps has entered into a stage of rebellion. I had reasons for leaving the ministry which were probably somewhat similar to Bell’s departure. Hypocritical Christians angered me then…as they still do now. At the time I left the ministry, I was angry that God had not answered particular requests that I had given. I had entered into a time of loneliness and needed a godly wife…a request that God ironically answered during the time I was out of the ministry (it was through my godly wife that I became more open to the claims of Christ…God certainly has a sense of humor). My reasons for rejecting Christianity had little to do with God and Christ, but had more to do with my problems with Christians and unanswered prayers. I suspect that Bell’s rejection is based upon much of the same. I end this article with a plea. If Ryan Bell reads this article, I plead with him to give Christianity another hearing. I would suggest that he take the time to read the works of great Christian apologists like Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, J.P. Moreland, Greg Koukl, Kenneth Samples, Josh McDowell, and on and on and on. Many of his questions are answered in their works. But, I would also plead with you the reader to take the time to give Christianity a fair hearing. Maybe you are already a Christian. You will want to know why you believe what you believe. Maybe like Bell, you are a skeptic. A great deal of positive evidence is available to demonstrate the rationality of God’s existence and the truthfulness of Christianity. In giving Christianity a chance, you might just be compelled to become a Christian. If you do, click the “How to Know Jesus” link on this website.

Blessings,

Pastor Brian

© Pastor Brian Chilton. 2015.

Bibliography

 Bell, Ryan. “An End, and a New Beginning.” Patheos.com (December 31, 2014). Accessed January 2, 2015. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearwithoutgod/2014/12/31/an-end-and-a-new-beginning/

Scripture used, unless otherwise noted, comes from the English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway, 2001.

____________________________________________________

[1] All Scripture, unless otherwise noted, comes from the English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway, 2001.

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ: Part 4–Psychological Evidence

We originally planned to have 4 parts to this topic.  However, as time has progressed, it has become necessary to have five parts.  So if previous articles listed only four in this series…understand that yes, I can count and have not lost my mind.  🙂  The material required five articles instead of four.  God bless.

Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Part 4: Psychological Evidence

 

by: Pastor Brian Chilton

 

When my cousin and I were younger, we would stay at our grandparents’ house after getting home from school until our parents came to pick us up.  My cousin was older than I.  He would go home by himself because he was old enough to do so.  My cousin has always had the knack for telling good stories.  Some of the stories were true and some were not.  One time, he got off the bus and had claimed that he had broken his arm.  He had it bandaged up and everything.  We were all concerned and asked him how he broke his arm.  He told us and then went home.  I told my dad about him breaking his arm.  So later that afternoon, my dad called my uncle and asked about my cousin.  My uncle said, “He did not break his arm.  He is just fine.”  We were all astonished because he had pulled a very clever prank.  The prank did not last long because the truth eventually came out.

When it comes to lies, or conspiracies, eventually there is a break and the truth wins in the end.  Many are engrossed with conspiracy theories in our day and time.  Some are infatuated with the fictional conspiracy tales of Dan Brown.  On late night radio shows and even on some major channels, conspiracies are discussed.  Some have postulated that Christianity itself is a big conspiracy.  However, when the evidence is examined, one finds that conspiracy theories just do not hold water when speaking about the historicity of Christ’s resurrection.  So in this article, we wish to examine the psychological evidence found in that people do not die for lies and we will examine the psychological nature of conspiracies as given by J. Warner Wallace in his book Cold-Case Christianity.

Would You Die for a Lie

A story is told of a group of people going into a congregation of 5,000 people and threatening to assault the Christians in attendance.  Everyone except 50 left.  The pretend assaulters proclaimed, “Now we know who the real Christians are.”  It is one thing to die for something someone believes in, but it is something completely different to die for something you know to be true or false.  This is the case with the early Christians.  They died for what they knew to be true.  John writes, “What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”^[1]  John reported what he had “seen” and “heard.”  Going back to our original story about my cousin, we can see that when probed my cousin finally relented and told the truth.  For one, there was no evidence that my cousin’s arm was broken.  Secondly, when threatened with possible punishment, he quickly told the truth.

However, the same is not the case with the early Christians.  They never relented even when posed with severe punishment.  Consider the fact that the following individuals died for their faith:

-Simon Peter (crucified upside-down in Rome),

-Andrew (crucified on an “X” shaped cross in southern Greece),

-James, son of Zebedee (killed with the sword),

-John, son of Zebedee (exiled to the Isle of Patmos),

-Matthew (killed by sword in Ethiopia),

-Thomas (killed by stabbing in Madras, India),

-Philip (crucified in Phyrgia),

-Simon the Canaanite (hacked to death in Egypt),

-Bartholomew, otherwise known as Nathaniel (skinned alive and then beheaded in Armenia),

-Thaddeus (killed in Persia)

-James the Less (executed in Egypt),

-James, the brother of Jesus (thrown off the Temple mount and beaten to death with clubs),

-Paul (beheaded at about the same time Peter was crucified in Rome in 67 AD).

Other Christians were fed to lions, burned at the stake, and killed viciously.  Yet, none of them forsook the story that they had in fact seen Jesus raised from the dead.  This speaks volumes as to the historicity of the claim.  If Jesus’ body were in the tomb, all that would have happened would be that the enemies would have exposed the body and then the story would have been over.  Yet a body was never retrieved and the apostles never recanted.  But, another piece of psychological information exists…that of the non-relational attributes of conspiracy theories.

Resurrection Witness Does Not Match Conspiracies

J. Warner Wallace, a cold-case detective and former atheist (now a Christian), gives five prerequisites that must exist in order for a conspiracy to remain intact in the seventh chapter of his book Cold-Case Christianity.  Wallace writes, “In my experience as a detective, I have investigated many conspiracies and multiple-suspect crimes.  While successful conspiracies are the popular subject of many movies and novels, I’ve come to learn that they are (in reality) very difficult to pull off.  Successful conspiracies share a number of common characteristics: A SMALL NUMBER OF CONSIRATORS…THOROUGH AND IMMEDIATE COMMUNICATION…A SHORT TIME SPAN…SIGNIFICANT RELATIONAL CONNECTIONS…LITTLE OR NO PRESSURE.”[2]

 Let’s consider Wallace’s five points.  First, Wallace noted that a conspiracy had to contain a “small number of conspirators.”  Remember from our previous post (See Eyewitness Testimony article) that there were over 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive from the dead.  It could have been as high as 3,000 witnesses that day.  Numerous people were saying the same thing.  If the resurrection was based on a lie, someone somewhere would have cracked and told the conspiracy.  It only took my uncle to crack the case of my cousin’s broken arm…one conspirator!  How does a conspiracy pass the test with hundreds if not thousands proclaiming the same thing?

Second, Wallace mentions that a conspiracy must have “thorough and immediate communication.”  Everyone needed to be in direct communication with one another at all times.  Yet in the gospel accounts, we do not see an organized arrangement of resurrection accounts.  They are what one would expect to find if they were reporting actual eyewitness testimony…somewhat scattered coming from different eyewitnesses.  In Jesus’ day, no mass media outlets were available.  It would have been much easier for the authorities to crack the resurrection case if in fact the resurrection was false.  That never happened.

Third, Wallace lists that conspiracies must have “a short time span.”  Yet, the message of the resurrection has lasted even until now with direct succession of testimony from the earliest apostles.[3]  In other words, the longer a lie is given the more likelihood that the lie will break.  This never happened in close to 2,000 years since the resurrection of Christ transpired.

Fourth, Wallace lists that conspiracies must have “significant relational connections.”  In other words, for a conspiracy to work there must be close family ties.  A person will be more likely to “rat out” a person that is not family rather than one who is.  With the disciples of Jesus, you do have some who are loosely related to Jesus (John and James could have been Jesus’ cousins) and some who are directly related to Jesus (Mary, the mother of Jesus and James the brother of Jesus).  But remember, the brothers of Jesus did not believe in Jesus during His earthly ministry and only came to follow Him after the resurrection.  For the most part, the disciples were unrelated to Jesus.  Perhaps this was why many left Jesus when He was being tried.  However, they all came back and professed Jesus as the risen Lord…some who had been adversaries of Jesus (James, Jude, Paul, and even some of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus).[4]  This does not fit the mold of a conspiracy.

Finally, Wallace lists that a conspiracy must have “little or no pressure.”  The higher the temperature results in the higher chance that something will melt.  With respects to musician Glenn Frey, “the heat was on” for the apostles.  From the beginning, the Christians were excommunicated and cast-aways from the society in general.  During the time of Nero when many eyewitnesses were still living, massive waves of Christian persecution swept across the Roman Empire but the message only grew stronger!  This is exactly the opposite of what one would expect from a conspiracy!

Hence, psychologically we find that Christianity is built upon a historical event that transformed the lives of the Christians: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The resurrection was not a hallucination.  It was not a cleverly devised plan.  It was a historical fact.  You too can be transformed by the amazing power of the resurrection.  Will you allow the Risen Jesus to have access to your life today by entering into a relationship with Him?  The resurrection still brings power to those who are willing to embrace this historical fact even after 2,000 years.

Bibliography

All Scripture unless otherwise noted comes from New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).

Wallace, J. Warner, Cold-Case Christianity (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook Publishers, 2013).

---

^[1] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), 1 Jn 1:3.

[2] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook Publishers, 2013), 110-112.

[3] See chapter 13 “Were They Accurate?” of J. Warner Wallace’s book Cold-Case Christianity for a thorough review of apostolic succession.  Multiple lines of apostolic authority existed.

[4] Specifically Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were part of the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus.  However, it is not clear if Nicodemus and Joseph were in the party that condemned Jesus.  It may have been that they were absent at the trial.