The following summary and critiques are based on pages 127-135 of the book, “The Case Against God” by George H. Smith.
Summary:
Smith begins by stating his reason for this section of his book. He is attempting to eliminate Natural Theology all together. As I read this, I am obviously limited to some assumptions and possible implications as this is a very short section of a longer book. However, Smith claims that in earlier chapters, he had proven to rule out faith and revelation and this must be the case in this section of his book. He claims that, without faith and revelation in the picture, Natural Theology is doomed and destined for failure.
Next, Smith begins to approach and limit the scope by which the argument must take place in. He begins however, by broadening the topic. The Christian God is first “easily” ruled out as it is “a mass of unintelligible characteristics”. According to Smith, the Christian can’t even make sense of the phrase, “God exists”. Smith will explain why later in this section of his book. So, the argument is not against the Christian God alone, but the existence of the supernatural all together.
There are many different confines to the argument, but the biggest is the context of reason. Smith bases his argument on the limitation of reason alone. Neither Smith, nor the opposing view can appeal to anything except for reason. “Either God stands on reason or he doesn’t stand at all”. Smith then gives three conditions of proof:
- Arguments cannot contain theistic presuppositions. Smith gives two examples here. (a) the theist will ask, “What is the cause of the universe?” whenever they should be asking, “Does the universe require a causal explanation?”. (b) the theist will ask, “What is responsible for the design in nature?” whenever they should be asking, “Does nature exhibit design?”.
- The argument must be decided solely on the basis of evidence/no faith.
- There must be a distinction between rational theism and rational theist
- Rational theism – Depends solely on the possibility of demonstrating the existence of God.
- Rational theist – One who is motivated to believe in God because he believes that God’s existence can be established through reason.
After establishing these conditions, Smith makes a claim that the supernatural is unknowable by man and is therefore unintelligible. His premise is that the supernatural is unknowable and the unknown cannot be defined by the unknowable. This is brought up because if the supernatural is unknowable and the unknown cannot be explained by the unknowable, then the supernatural is unable to explain anything within the natural realm.
Next, Smith argues that the universe cannot require an explanation because it is a metaphysical primary. The universe is and everything within must be explained by the laws and principles found within the universe. The universe is all there is, and it simply is. According to Smith, the universe simply exists and there isn’t any reason to answer origins. In fact, it cannot require an explanation because it simply is.
Lastly, Smith continues, and somewhat reiterates his point that the universe must be explained by that which is inside or within. If the universe is all there is, it must be explained by what it contains; namely, naturalism. Smith claims that the argument of supernaturalism verses naturalism is not that of which is a better explanation, but that naturalism is the only explanation. Supernaturalism is unreasonable, unknowable and therefore provides no explanation for anything within the universe, which is all there is. This leaves quite a grey day for theists…
Critiques/Interaction:
The major premise of the entire piece is that all knowledge must come from reason. The only way we can ever know if something is true is through reason. If something isn’t reasonable and demonstrable, then it is unknowable and therefore, unintelligible. Whenever someone like Smith states that something must be able to be demonstrated in order for it to be knowable, he is appealing to the senses (like many scientists appeal to). You must be able to taste, see, feel, hear something in order for it to exist. The problem is whenever something is limited to the senses. Can you see, hear, feel or taste happiness? You can see the results of someone’s happiness. You can hear the results (usually). You can feel the results of an increased heart rate or a warm face. I can taste cake and that makes me happy? Anyways, the idea is, you can use your senses to know the results of happiness exist, but the senses can’t actually prove emotion. So, what do we eliminate by limiting existence to the senses?
I have to say, I agree with Smith with part of his first condition of proof. I believe taking away theistic presuppositions is a flaw by which Smith tries to eliminate any ground for the theist to stand on. However, I do believe theism can be proven using the questions Smith wants us to ask. Let us use the question Smith presents, “Does nature exhibit design?”. If the answer to this question is yes, the naturalist has to answer, who or what designed it? If the answer is no, the theist now has no ground to stand on (in this topic of argumentation). Let’s take the idea of an ecosystem. If you take one part of an ecosystem out, the whole thing fails. If you remove the sun, life on earth is ruined. If you move the earth any closer to the sun, all life burns. If you move it any further from the sun, all life freezes. If you remove one chromosome, the human cannot function normally. If you remove one organ, generally, the human body will fail. Anyways, you get the point. The universe is complex in its design. The human body alone is designed in such a way that there is no way the enough time and chance could lead to the design of it. So, one must answer, how did the universe get designed the way it is?
Lastly, let’s look at the second condition Smith presents. He presents the idea that the decision of this argument must be based solely on evidence, no faith. Can the supernatural be proven by evidence? Like all science, a decision is made whenever evidence points most to the theory being presented. For example, the first law of thermodynamics states that energy within a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed but can be changed from one form to another. An example of this would be fire. Whenever wood is burned, the energy is not destroyed but instead changed from wood to smoke, ash and heat. This conclusion is accepted because the evidence that has been presented thus far points to that truth. It is not an absolute truth (nothing is science is an absolute truth) but it is taken as truth because of the amount of evidence pointing to the accuracy of the theory (I would in fact, argue that the Bible contains all absolute truths we know as it is the revelation given by God – the source of absolute truth). So, in order to determine truth with evidence, the evidence must overwhelmingly point to one theory over the rest. This will give a percentage of certainty in the truthfulness of a claim.
So, let’s look at the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus died on a cross under the rule of Pontius Pilate, was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and three days later rose from the dead and appeared to five hundred people. Sceptics would absolutely have an issue with this statement, but the fact is, if this can be proven, then miracles must exist and therefore the supernatural found in the Bible can now be discussed with reasoning.
The statement “Jesus died on a cross under Pontius Pilate” is well accepted by many. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus even states that this is true in his writings. The statement “Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea” is also not debated. Or at least the statement Jesus was buried should not be debated. It is safe to even go as far as to say that Jesus was buried, and the tomb was empty three days later. The proof can be found in the Jewish Talmud. The Jews of the day admitted to the empty tomb whenever they conjured up a reason for the tomb being empty. The reasoning was the disciples of Jesus had stolen the body. So, the only statement about the resurrection of Jesus that is debated well is the actual act of resurrection. Everything leading to the resurrection is widely accepted including the death and burial and disappearance of Jesus body, just not the resurrection. So, what are some ways that Jesus’ body could have disappeared?
Some, including the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day, would say that the disciples stole the body. There are so many problems with this conclusion. First, it is known that Roman soldiers were set watch over the tomb of Jesus after he was buried because the Jewish leaders feared that the disciples would steal the body. The only way for the disciples to get the body of Jesus is to get past the roman soldiers, role the 2500-pound stone away and then escape without catching the attention of the roman soldiers. So, were they sleeping? The consequence for a Roman soldier who slept on watch was death; so, I highly doubt they fell asleep. Did the disciples beat the Roman soldiers in a brawl? Roman soldiers were the toughest, most well-trained individuals to walk the planet; not to mentioned armed with weapons. The disciples were fishermen, tax collectors, and other working class who were taught to love their enemies and not be violent. So, I doubt they were able to beat the soldiers in a fight. Lastly, what would the disciples want with a dead Messiah? Jesus had come to this earth to save the Jews from oppression. The disciples had learned he was the Son of God and was to follow him out of oppression. Well, from their point of view, how could a dead man do that?
Another reasoning for the empty tomb is that everyone who came to the tomb simply went to the wrong tomb. So maybe the women who first found the empty tomb went to the wrong one, but did the disciples go to the wrong tomb? Did the Jewish leaders go to the wrong tomb? What about the Roman leaders? Or what about the owner of the tomb?
Another argument for the empty tomb of Jesus Christ is that Jesus never died and escaped the grasp of the tomb. Once again, this argument is ridiculous. Scripture states that whenever Jesus died on the cross the Roman guards pierced his side. Whenever they did this, water and blood flowed from the wound. The only time that water and blood flow from a womb is if said person has been dead for quite some time (long enough for the blood and water to separate). But, for the sake of argument, Jesus didn’t die on the cross and was buried still somehow living. Before the crucifixion, the Roman custom was to scourge the person being crucified. The scourging was so intense that a lot of people died before they could make it to the cross; internal organs would even be exposed. If Jesus made it through that and survived the cross, he must have got out of his linens which were wrapped with 75 pounds of herbs and spices, opened the tomb, and escaped the guards all while needing an emergency room. That would have been just as miraculous as Jesus rising from the dead.
The best conclusion that can be reached is the resurrection. Nothing else makes logical sense. If the resurrection is true, miracles must exist in the world. The beauty of this is, God is in the universe (as Smith points is a requirement for explanation) and Jesus took physical form, died a physical death, was buried in a physical tomb and resurrected with a physical body by the supernatural power of a personal, understandable God.