Should a Believer Admit He may be Wrong about God’s Existence?

Another from today's email:

Should a believer admit that he or she could be wrong in believing that God exists?

Good afternoon Steve.

I would like to offer an analogy about belief and non-belief. As a nonbeliever myself, perhaps I can offer a different view.

Imagine two men having a discussion about global warming. One of them believes in it and the other doesn't. Each mentions statistics and figures. Each mentions studies and papers written by scientists. But each is convinced that he is right.

Finally, one of them says, "I could be interpreting the data incorrectly. I've been wrong about other things before. I could be wrong about this." The other says "I won't acknowledge the possibility that I could be wrong. If I even admit to the possibility that I could be wrong, I would be betraying and insulting my father. It would be as if I were spitting on my father."

So my question is, if I believe that acknowledging the mere possibility that I could be wrong is betraying my father, how honestly and thoroughly am I going to scrutinize my own beliefs? I would be unable to be impartial and objective.

Alec

--------------------------------------------------------

Hi Alec,

Thanks for the thoughts. I also believe that every person should admit to the possibility that we could be wrong. The likelihood of our being right or wrong, of course, would be determined by the quality of the foundation for our beliefs.

For example, I believe that I am the biological son of a certain Mr. and Mrs. Gregg, and that I was not adopted. I could possibly be wrong, since I do not remember my own birth, and can prove nothing about it with 100% certainty. However, I have an excellent foundation for my beliefs, which includes:

1) A birth certificate filled out at the hospital of my birth naming this couple as my parents;

2) Striking physical resemblance to both parents;

3) The testimony of my parents, who surely know the truth of the matter, and whom I have always found to be honest, and never to lie about anything (e.g., they never allowed us kids to believe there was a Santa Claus, because that would be lying to us);

4) I know that some couple brought me into existence, and there are no other contenders claiming to be my parents or suggesting that I had different parents than these.

All these data could conceivably prove to be misleading and false, but it would make no sense for me to live my life as if these things were false. They constitute the strongest possible case for the proposition that anyone could desire, and there is zero evidence of any alternative proposition.

Could I be wrong? Of course, but it would be irrational for me to think seriously that I am wrong about this, given the weight of the evidence. Could some stranger someday turn up with evidence to convince me that I am wrong so as to change my mind? Conceivably, but the burden of proof weighing against their case would be almost impossibly high””perhaps DNA evidence could be found to topple my assumptions, but none actually has been found.

Given the nature of the case and the evidence available, it would be irrational for me to doubt that the couple who raised me are my real parents.

My belief in God is on the same order.

1) The information coded in the DNA of every living cell had to be coded by some intelligent source””unless one wishes to bring evidence of any case known to man in which communicable information arose without an intelligent source. If the researchers of the SETI project were to receive such information from outer space in the form of radio transmissions, they would know with certainty that there is intelligent life out there””even if it had never been seen and they knew nothing more about it. This would be true even if the information was as simple as the sentence, "Resistance is futile!” How much more the genetic information in the simplest cell which exceeds the complexity of the information in the entire Encyclopedia Britanica?

2) No evidence exists that living, conscious beings can naturally or spontaneously come into existence from non-living, unconscious chemicals.

3) Big-Bang cosmology, which is now accepted by most branches of science, proves that the universe and matter had a moment of beginning. Nothing that begins can be said to have created itself. All temporal things that we know of are effects of some prior cause. Matter and energy are likewise effects of some cause. They cannot be their own creators. Whatever was prior to them was neither natural nor material.

4) Hundreds of phenomena which cannot rationally be explained without recourse to the supernatural or the divine have been witnessed throughout history by rational observers.

5) Historical records of the highest credibility””both from Christian and anti-Christian sources””have unanimously recorded the historical existence of a man named Jesus of Nazareth, who astounded His contemporaries with His claims to divinity, and backed-up His claims with miraculous works, including His own resurrection from the dead.

6) There are no contemporary or ancient historians who denied Christ’s existence or the things that were recorded about Him by those who left us the record of His life.

7) I have lived interactively with God for almost as long as I have interacted with the couple who raised me””and I have never found anything He said to be unreliable. I have had tangible answers to my prayers literally thousands of times over half a century. It is as though I was in communication with a pen-pal overseas, whom I had never seen. The back-and-forth communication, the questions reliably answered, the gifts sent and received, etc., are pretty strong evidences that someone is at the other end of this correspondence.

8)Those who would take the opposite view””namely, that there is no God””have exactly zero evidence to support their universally-negative claim.

While the believer and the unbeliever both should be humble enough to admit the possibility of their being in error, if one considers the respective foundations for belief and unbelief, it will be clear that the believer has far less reason for uncertainty than has the unbeliever.

Also, the person who has failed to objectively critique the foundations of his or her belief or unbelief has less reason for confidence than has one who regularly cross-examines his or her own beliefs. I have personally been engaged in such cross-examination of my beliefs for literally 50 years. In that time, have not found even the slightest evidence that my confidence in God is vulnerable to disproof.

Thanks again for writing!

Steve Gregg

This is excellent, thank you for posting.

David

I liked Steve's response.

Romans 1 directly addresses this:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Question: Should a believer admit that he or she could be wrong in believing that God exists?

Answer: No

Question: Should a believer admit that he or she could be wrong in believing that they exist?

There is no way in the universe I would give myself over to the possibility that God does not exist. To the author's point, there sure is a lot of evidence in my life that He does exist. That's cause He does.

But I don't care if an alien spaceship lands in my backyard then aliens gets out and inform me that they put humans here in some kinda grand experiment. And I don't care if some spiritual being shows up in my bedroom one night to give me some kinda new revelation. I don't care if my whole life tanks and everything goes south.

For me to say that God doesn't exist would be a lie. To denounce Christ and Him crucified as a possible myth would be a lie. Why would I lie to the guy by caving to any possibility of any of those things? There is a 100% chance possibility, without margin of error, that God is real and He sent His only Son, Jesus the Christ, to save us by dying on the cross and rising again.

You know what I have accomplished by admitting the possbility that I might be wrong: I have enouraged him to hold on to his belief cause now we are on equal footing. I am no better than he and he is no better than I.

This argument shoots itself in the foot. By this reasoning, we cannot be sure of anything. Gravity might exist--I mean, it seems to work. All the evidence points to it, but I might be wrong about its existence.

Romans 4 explains it best:

Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed””God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, "So shall your descendants be.” And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

Wonder if Abraham met an unbeliever and said "I could be wrong, but ya know, the evidence......" If that is what he truly believed, he'd be lost and so would we.

The Bible teaches of course that faith is necessary. Heb. 11:1.

Certainty does not require faith, by definition.

I think the passage I quoted answers that fully.

Well, you are simply saying that in your mind there is no doubt that God exists and I certainly agree with you. But our beliefs are subjective based on what we see as ample evidence, the same as Abraham.

Witnessing to unbelievers entails an appeal to evidence.

General Revelation is enough to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of God--per the Scriptures. All people who reject the Gospel are supressing the truth in unrighteousness. As another brother mentioned, Romans 1 is a great verse to demonstrate it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man””and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” (Rom 1:18-32)

I am not saying apologetics is bad or anything like that. I rather like it. But when we are using apologetics, what is truly happening is that we are appealing to men and women who know the truth, but have supressed it and rejected it.

Faith is not faith because we leave room for being wrong. Faith is faith because God promises and we believe it, although it is counter to anything we HAVE objectively seen. My faith is not based upon reason (although reason certainly helps me to articulate the truth) but is based upon believing what God has said. God declared the Gospel; I believe what He says is true. It is accredited to me for righteousness.

In essence, my REASONING and REASON FOR BELIEVING are based upon the bedrock, immutable God who has promised.

0 room for other options.

In the OP, the question was from an atheist for whom the very existence of God is at issue.

You may consider preaching to an atheist to be "casting pearls before swine.” This may be true in some cases, but perhaps not all.

In other words, you can’t tell someone who doesn’t believe in a god in the first place that "I believe because it is God who has promised.” I mean you can, but it won’t do much good.

"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.: - Hebrews 11:6 NASB

Obviously, an ATHEIST hasn't "come to God."

However, any who "comes to God" must believe that HE IS. That is to say that they believe that He exists (and rewards those who seek him).

In speaking with unbelievers, you cannot "compromise" by questioning the very existence of the LORD -- the Creator of All Things. By "conceding" such a foundation of faith within a debate, you immediately lose (and arguably more than just the debate).

At the same time, the atheist doesn't believe. That person believes that they are right and you (the believer) are wrong. There is a sense of pride and superiority with many atheists because they intrinsically look down upon those of us who believe.

This is due to the notion that someone who believes must arrive to that position due to some flaw in their mental or emotional state.

It is almost impossible (at least for human beings) to "convince" such a person because they are antagonistic from the very foundation of their thinking. Essentially, they have "faith" in something other than God -- and replacing it would feel almost a violation of their secular dogmatism.

In my experience, such individuals aren't honest with their debates -- but dubiously attempt to convert with every word to their views. They are self-assured and more "evangelical" with their dogmatic atheism than most evangelists or missionaries.

For them, any such debate is a win-win scenario. If they cannot "convert" their hearers (or readers) to their position, they feel smug in the way that they look down on those who do not convert to their form of atheism. They are the types who feel exalted by tearing down others (or their sacred beliefs). They are the ones who think that being an iconoclast is always a GOOD thing.

However, there exists what are sometimes called "honest atheists." These are individuals who simply don't believe but could/would if they were successfully convinced. They are open to the notion that they can be wrong.

I think that it is acceptable to tell an atheist that you understand their questions or even lack of belief -- especially if you once felt/experienced that same question or unbelief.

This isn't a concession of the basis of faith (i.e., the existence of the one true Living God); rather, it is conceding the limits to human understanding. This, accompanied by what helped you overcome those issues, can be helpful when sharing your own testimony with others.

Coincidentally I came across this quote in a novel I’ve been reading:

"My argument was that absolute certitude as to the truths of natural theology was the result of an assemblage of concurring and converging probabilities… that probabilities which did not reach to logical certainty might create a mental certitude.”