I wanted to illuminate something to those of us who have doubts about God’s existence.
When an atheist or agnostic says that they can’t believe because God hasn’t shown up in some tangible, measurable way, they are aligning with the scientific worldview of empiricism. In this system, reality is defined by those things that can be measured, weighed, or empirically tested. I also support this world view, but I recognize it’s limitations which I will point out now.
The scientific worldview cannot and does not account for abstract realities. If it can’t be empirically proven, the scientific worldview puts it on a shelf and says we don’t have the answer yet, but one day science will discover it.
This is fine as far as it goes. The problem occurs when they insert things like logic. “There must be some logical explanation.”
How heavy is logic? What is the circumference of the law of logic? How is logic measured empirically? You see the problem? If an atheist or scientist uses true logic, then they have abandoned their own scientific worldview. They are employing a worldview that has abstract realities. They are employing faith in something that is empirically unprovable. They are just like a Christian who believes in God. They are people of faith.
Let me illustrate it this way:
There is a little voice inside each of us that speaks to us when we eat. It tells us we need more exercise. It tells us we need to eat less junk, make better choices, get control over some vice. Now we know scientifically that human instinct is in common with animal instincts in that we seek the greatest calories with the least effort. No animal instinctually exercises for health benefits. A helpful point made by C.S. Lewis is : that thing that tells us that we should alter our instincts cannot itself be the instinct. It is another thing, it is higher up and further back from the instinct. It’s a moral law pressing on us. The point here is that there are abstract realities that are universally binding, yet not empirically based.
Since this is common to all humanity, and not to any animal, how does science or atheism account for such a thing to exist. They live as though they do exist but they can’t account for them. According to empiricism, abstract realities cannot exist because, like logic and mathematics, they have no empirical dimension. This is the very argument against the existence of God.
But we all know abstract realities to be TRUE. We all know them to be REALITY. Our lives depend on them every day.
We don’t launch the space shuttle in a random or evolutionary fashion. We launch it based on complex and fixed laws of mathematics and science. Mathematics is not empirically based, but it makes empiricism possible. Same goes for God. Asking “Where is God that I can see him?” is like asking how heavy is the number 5? It is illogical.
Therefore, the most LOGICAL explanation is that a worldview exists where such things as abstract realities truly exist and can be accounted for. To ignore their existence is to ignore logic, mathematics, and morality and no one can really live that way in a human society. All people appeal to them whether we account for them or not.
If the empirical worldview is not logical, or not possible, then the existence of God must first be true in order for an alternate type of worldview to logically exist. God could not exist if abstract realities do not exist. Since they exist and all people know and live by them, God’s existence must at least be plausible.
Once we see this, we can’t unsee it. We can choose to suppress it because we don’t want it to be true. But that isn’t helpful.
So I settle this by concluding that my atheist or agnostic brothers and sisters are not dissimilar to me or any person of faith because none of us possess all the truth, and we each possess some of it. Thus we are all doubters. We are all at best only partial believers. Some more than others, but not by much. God still works in and through us all, always writing himself into the human drama so as to make it impossible for any of us to miss him.