Is There A God?

The next few posts will focus on the questions: Is there a God? If so, who is He?

This posting will begin to answer the question, "Is there a God?"

I think the best introduction to this concept was written by C.S. Lewis, in his book Mere Christianity. I've used his outline as my guide for this article.

Some of you may object to my use of a book entitled, Mere Christianity, to introduce this topic. You may argue, "No fair, you're beginning with a starting point of Christianity."

Perhaps, but the fact is, I've studied this question most of my life, and I have arrived at the point of firmly understanding the truth of Christianity. So, even if you think my starting point is biased, I ask that you indulge the discussion with tolerance.

Maybe your patience will be calmed by considering that I'm not asking you to do anything that you don't do every single day. After all, most of the early scientists were Christians. Therefore many of the great scientific discoveries were made by Christians. Yet, you don't refuse to take Penicillin when you're ill, nor do you reject the fact that the planets revolve around the sun, simply because those ideas originate with Christians (Alexander Fleming and Nicolaus Copernicus, respectively). All I ask is that you consider this information so you can make an informed decision.

Let's begin with a simple question: Have you ever argued with someone?

Of course you have. Everyone has. But, why argue?

You argue, because you think you are right and the other person is wrong.

[A quick side note for those of you who make the claim, "There is no right or wrong." If you have ever had an argument (and you know you have), you have proven that you are wrong. Even the statement, "There is no right or wrong," is hypocritical (is that statement right, or wrong?).]

But even more important, you argue with others because you wish the other person to understand that you are right. But what do you base your position upon? C.S. Lewis stated that this position is based on a commonly understood standard of right and wrong. A standard understood by everyone, everywhere.

The proof is so obvious that most people don't even think about it, and that is: sometimes, the other person agrees with you.

Think about that. You disagree with someone. You argue. You point out where they are wrong, and they agree with you. Clearly you can only reach agreement when the other person shares your standard for what is right, and what is wrong.

For brevity, I'll assume that you see the point. We can now agree on the existence of the fact that there is a commonly understood standard of right and wrong. Let's call the standard for right, "Law".

The fact that people disobey these laws does not prove that they do not exist, only that people disobey them. Nor is is acceptable to claim that differences in laws prove there is no universal standard. The differences in laws we find from place to place are more anomalies than opposites.

We are currently witnessing an example of this principle. The 2008 Olympics are winding down in Beijing, China. There are a number of athletes and tourists from around the world gathered together in and around the host city. But we don't witness chaos, we see cooperation. Why? Because humanity has a common in-born agreement of what the laws of behavior are.

Of course, none of us are very good at keeping these laws. Worse, when we break them, we make excuses to justify our behavior. Watch any child who just stole a cookie from the cookie jar to see this in action. Watch the creativity for explaining the action away, denying what happened, or describing why the theft is reasonable. Why? Because our inner sense of the law tells us we must explain our poor adherence to the law. We twist reason and fact to try to convince ourselves and others that if not for a set of factors outside of our control, we'd be wonderful people in complete harmony with the law.

One final point about this inner-known law: respected people around the world agree that these laws exist. Want proof?

Listen to comments about people like Mother Theresa, Ghandi, and others who try to improve the human condition. They're called reformers, role models, great philosophers, more... They received awards during their lives, and get significant coverage in school discussions and textbooks. Even many so-called atheists agree that Jesus was a "good man", and a role-model. Based on what? It must be based on the internal law.

Finally, these internal laws are certainly not instinct (instinct being that inner voice that insists we not endanger ourselves, make life harder than it already is, and that we must preserve our DNA). Mother Theresa would not have lived in harsh conditions, Ghandi would not have gone on hunger strikes or sought peace at any cost. Firemen wouldn't rush into burning buildings, and men would not offer their seat to a weak elderly person, if instinct controlled our actions.

All of this brings us to the key question about this law: Where did it come from?

The answer to that important question will have to wait until my next post.