Doubts Part III: Finding Answers, or My Grown-Up Book Report

(This is part three of a series of journal entries and research I've been working on for the last month or so. You can find part one here, and part two here.)

January 12, 2014

I love libraries. And I tend to think that any problem can be solved by a trip to the library. Need to learn about real estate or plan a trip? The library can help! Too embarrassed to buy a People magazine to read up on British royalty? Check out the back-issues at the library! Can't cook? The library has a whole cook-book section! The library is the answer to life's problems big and small. It is no surprise then, that my initial acknowledgement of the doubts I was struggling with regarding my faith was followed by a trip to the library. And I piled on the books--Mere Christianity, The Case for Christ, Escape from Reason...But it was A Reason For God by Timothy Keller that I began to read first.

In it, I found loads of compelling evidence for the existence of God...(I recommend you go ahead and read the book, but if you're short on time, the highlights I found most intriguing are below.)

*Keller cites Robin Collin's, "A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God: The Fine-Tuning Design Argument", that highlights fifteen constants in our universe, that, were they off in their exact values by even one in a million, our world could not have existed. Since that fact is a bit heady and hard to grasp, Keller borrows philosopher John Leslie's analogy. If an expert firing squad of fifty men all shot at a target that was six feet away, and no one hit the target, it is possible that it was an accident, but not probable. Likely, they all missed on purpose. Similarly, it's possible that all the necessary constants just happened to align on their own so that our universe could burst into being, but it's not likely.

*Keller brings up St. Augustine's Confessions and his theory that unfulfilled longings are proof of God's existence. If we are hungry, if we desire food, it doesn't necessarily mean that we will eat, but doesn't it prove that food exists? The thing is, we have longings much more powerful than hunger...longings for meaning in life that even a really great career or family can't satisfy; a desire for love that even the sweetest relationship can't ultimately provide; and a desire for happiness that is incredibly elusive, constantly slipping through our fingers. But we still long for those things...might it mean that true satisfaction is available somewhere?

*Keller introduces the ideas of the late Yale law professor, Arthur Leff, who writes about the great "Sez Who?" argument. Namely, if there is no God, there is no basis for morality and no reason to be moral. You may say that slavery or murder or racism is wrong, but the question remains, "Says who?" Some say that nature is the basis of our moral code, but, as writer Annie Dillard points out, nature is extremely violent. It is not wrong for a lion to kill a deer, but we consider it wrong for a stronger human to kill a weaker one. Therefore, nature cannot be responsible for our morality, so there must be a higher power than nature from whom we glean our moral code.

*Keller argues that deep down, we know this moral code exists. "We all live as if it is better to seek peace instead of war, to tell the truth instead of lying, to care and nurture rather than to destroy. We believe that these choices are not pointless, that it matters which way we choose to live..." Yet if there is no God, then does any of that ultimately matter? "...then the whole span of human civilization, even if it lasts a few million years, will be just an infinitesimally brief spark in relation to the oceans of dead time that preceded it and will follow it. There will be no one around to remember any of it. Whether we are loving or cruel in the end would make no difference at all."

Then I came across this quote: "If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all he said; if he didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he said? The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like his teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead." I was feeling pretty good that I basically came to the same conclusion as Keller, and also feeling hopeful that he was going to address this question on which lay the crux of my doubt. The basis for much of what he writes in this chapter comes from NT Wrights, The Resurrection of the Son of God.

Again, you should probably just turn off the computer and go read the chapter, "The Reality of the Resurrection", but if you want the much less eloquent (and shorter) version, here it is. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, how and why did Christianity begin? Some people argue that the story of Jesus's death changed with each telling, like a tall-tale, till suddenly he had risen from the dead(!); but anthropological studies tell us that in those times, "historical accounts were not allowed to be changed" and that fact and fiction in history was clearly differentiated. Also, the first Biblical writings citing the empty tomb (1 Corinthians) appeared only fifteen to twenty years after Jesus died, and mention over 500 eyewitnesses to his resurrection. This means that many of those people were still alive and available to share their account of seeing Jesus. Also, if the gospel accounts really were fabricated, the authors would never have picked women, whose social status was so low that their testimony was not considered valid evidence in court, to be the first witnesses to the resurrection. This evidence may not be enough for us, though, and we may imagine that people in those days were more gullible to an event like resurrection than we would be today. However, research shows the resurrection would have been unbelievable to both Jews and Greeks at that time. This makes a conspiracy by the disciples, as well as mental delusions on their part improbable because the idea of a resurrection wasn't something they, or those they were trying to convince could have even conceived. We know there were other people claiming to be the Messiah back then. All of them eventually died. Why didn't Jesus's disciples assume that his death meant that he, too, was a fraud, unless there was evidence proving otherwise?

Well, the library came through for me again.  I found the evidence compelling and affirming. I was, however, unprepared for what else I found...

Part Four.