God as Hypothesis

Many Christians whether they are aware of it or not, view the Bible and their faith through the lens of referential epistemology (or also known as a correspondence theory of truth).

What does all that gibberish mean?

It means that many proclaim the Words of the Bible to accurately fit or correspond to the world out there. As a result of this epistemological stance, we see books like Josh McDowell's mega-popular: Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In this book, McDowell lays out empirical evidence that he argues attests to the validity of the Christian faith. Or said differently, McDowell tests the Words of the Bible against the historical record in an attempt to justify the Christian faith to doubters. So, for instance, on page 68, he uses archaeological evidence to confirm the trustworthiness of Scripture.

So what's wrong with this?

One big problem is that people are inadvertently using a modern epistemological theory to support or prove their faith in the Bible. Historically, the correspondence theory of truth is a modern invention of philosophers of science. It is an epistemology that is only a few hundred years old, while the Bible is much, much older.

But really why is this problematic?

Well, because folks like McDowell are implicitly setting modern scientific practice (testing against empirical evidence the accuracy of a word) as the standard the Bible and its Words must pass before its valid. McDowell and his likes seem to want to make God into a hypothesis that can be tested against the evidence. The more evidence for God the more valid and trustworthy the Christian faith.

This way of talking about faith also has the effect of getting Christians caught up in battles with other empiricists. Thus, look at the recent books written by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris and others that try to refute Christian faith on empirical grounds. Or, they try to reduce Christian faith or religion more generally, to an empirical/material cause (e.g. a genetic or neuron-chemical brain function). In response, Christian apologists do double time in an effort to pick apart these arguments and offer counter evidence that attests to the validity of their faith.

But is faith in God really about empirics? I don't think so, or at least its not necessary.

To quote John D. Caputo on this: "Religious truth is not the truth of propositions, the sort of truth that comes from getting our cognitive ducks in order, from getting our cognitive contents squared up with what is out there in the world, so that if we say 'S is p' that means that we have picked out an Sp out there that looks just like our proposition."

Religious truth is of a different order. Saying that "God is love," for instance, is not about finding and testing "God" and "love" against the empirical record.

To continue with Caputo: "So if we say 'God is love,' that means that we are expected to get off our haunches and do something, make the truth happen, amidst our sisters and our brothers....in spirit and in truth, which means in deed, for the name of God is the name of a deed."

So, in short, we need to make the break and realize that faith in God is not dependent on some empirical piece of evidence and no amount of evidence is going to prove God or the Christian faith to be valid or trustworthy. McDowell may be doing a popular apologetic exercise that aims at convincing a modern-minded crowd of doubters--but he is doing damage too, as he risks reducing God to a rationally explicable and empirically testable phenomena. I would urge that the validity and trustworthiness of Christians and their faith is a matter to be made, a deed to be done and demonstrated to doubters. Don't point to a piece of empirical evidence and say: "look here, my faith in God is proven." Rather, demonstrate to me the validity and trustworthiness of your faith by showing me the fruit that it bears. Show me truth, love and justice in your actions.