Review: How Reason Can Lead to God

how reason can lead to God.jpg

How Reason Can Lead to GodJoshua Rasmussen. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019.

Summary: Argues for a “bridge of reason” that leads us to God, based on the foundation of reality.

I’ve never believed that one can prove the existence of God. At the same time, I believe it can be shown that faith in God is reasonable, rather than contrary to reason. I also would acknowledge that some propose that it is reasonable that there is no God. All I’ve ever been able to commend is that the sincere seeker of truth weigh these reasons, and act upon whatever is persuasive to them.

This is a book that lays out a reasonable argument in the form of a “bridge of reason.” The image is important because the author would argue that reason rests upon a foundation and the nature of the foundation both makes sense of our reason and is persuasive of the existence of a God at the foundation or source of all.

First of all, he argues for the self-sufficiency of reality and that this foundation meets nine possible objections. This self-sufficient reality is eternal, that is it never came into existence but is the source of all that exists. The tools of simplicity, explanatory depth, and uniformity point to a “purely actual” foundation that is a unity without gaps or limits. Furthermore, this foundation explains the existence of mind, matter, morals, and math (that is, logic or reason). Indeed, this foundation may be argued to be the perfection of these from which all derives, and hence a perfect foundation.

Rasmussen then considers problems with this foundational theory. The greatest, as in almost every argument for the existence of God is the existence of evil. Here, he argues for the possibility of God having good reasons for the existence of evil, particularly as a result of the creation of “kingly creatures” able to govern their own lives with the possibility of ruling badly. He devotes a chapter to this objection, and then an additional chapter to eight other objections.

He finally pulls all of this together through an argument from limits that points to the existence of perfection. He states:

Here is an idea: perfection–by the light of its simplicity and positivity–points to its own possibility (i.e. consistency). Something cool follows: by the logic of possibility, perfection must be instantiated. In this way, perfection points by its own nature, to its instantiation.

He works out this argument step by step in more or less non-technical but closely reasoned language. A person with training in logic will especially appreciate Rasmussen’s presentation, and perhaps also pick it apart! Certainly those who question the existence of reality, or our capacity to perceive reality beyond ourselves would have difficulty with his argument. However, I suspect they also have trouble with existence, because they act as if other minds, and other objects exist.

I am not a philosopher but it seems to me that he does something fairly novel. His is neither a cosmological or ontological argument for the existence of God. It is something like a Cartesian argument from reason, yet focuses on the foundation of existence that our capacity for reason is based upon.

One question I had was around his argument for the self-existence of the “blob of reality” at the foundation of all. I’m not quite sure of how Rasmussen distinguishes God and created reality. It seemed at least possible that his argument could give warrant for panentheism, the idea that all is in God, an idea not considered within orthodoxy by many Christians.

Rasmussen does not contend for this and I think he does a service both for skeptics, and for apologists in proposing yet another line of reasoning rooted in reason itself and our common experience, for the reality of God. I’ll be interested to see how his ideas are received among philosophers, and how he continues to develop his “bridge of reason.”


Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.


Review: Did the Resurrection Happen?

Did the Resurrection Happen

Did the Resurrection Happen?, David Baggett ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Summary: A history of the debates and friendship between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, a transcript of a 2003 conversation on the resurrection between these two, a discussion of Flew’s subsequent change from a belief in atheism to a kind of deism, and concluding discussions on the evidences and challenges to the idea of the resurrection of Jesus.

For Christians, Easter is actually the most important holiday of the year. It is the day we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, which the apostle Paul argues is the one historical reality on which Christianity stands or falls. In other words, Christianity is falsifiable if the resurrection is disproved, or at least suspect if a credible case cannot be put forward that such an incredible event took place.

This book, edited by David Baggett explores that case and the counter-claims that might be put forward with a section in the middle exploring the journey of one of the participants, Antony Flew from atheism to a deistic form of theism. Baggett introduces the book narrating the history of the growing friendship between Habermas and Flew and the history of debates between the two over a nearly twenty year period, culminating with the debate at Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo in 2003.

Part One then is a transcript of that debate, including audience questions. Habermas begins by asserting a list of twelve known historical facts for which he would contend that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation. These are:

  1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
  2. He was buried.
  3. The death of Jesus caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing that his life was ended.
  4. Although not as widely accepted, many scholars hold that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
  5. The disciples had experiences they believed were the literal appearances of the risen Christ.
  6. The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection.
  7. This message was the center of preaching in the early church.
  8. This message was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus was died and was buried shortly before.
  9. As a result of this teaching, the church was born and grew.
  10. Sunday became the primary day of worship.
  11. James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also believed that he had seen the resurrected Jesus.
  12. A few years later, Paul was converted by an experience that he likewise believed to be an appearance of the risen Christ.

Flew, who at one time was the foremost proponent of atheism, and still an avowed atheist at the point of this debate then engages these facts and the inferences from them. He questions the death, burial and most importantly the belief of the disciples that they had seen literal appearances of Jesus. Habermas invokes medical research on the physical effects of crucifixion on the body that can lead to swift death by asphyxia, the multiple testimonies to the burial of Jesus without contrary testimony and the witnesses to the empty tomb including the improbable citing of women as the first witnesses. Then he shows the improbability of mass hallucination, which anything other than hoax or literal appearance would require. It is striking that, at the end, Flew acknowledges that there are good rational grounds for the belief in the resurrection, although for him it remained incredible given his beliefs about the world.

Part Two begins with a conversation between Habermas and Flew about his journey from atheism to a deistic form of theism. The conversation was striking to me for two things. One was the intellectual engagement between these two men who had become friends. The other was the importance of design and fine-tuning arguments in persuading Flew to embrace deism. The second part of this section is Gary Habermas review of Flew’s book, There Is a God. Perhaps most fascinating is the distinction of Flew’s that Habermas notes between philosophical and scientific evidence. Plainly, scientific evidence figured more highly for Flew. It was also significant that a major barrier to embracing Christian theism for Flew was the problem of evil and suffering. Habermas contends that a free will defense may answer this but Flew believed this required a prior belief in revelation, a point of contention between the two. [It should be noted that Antony Flew died April 8, 2010, still embracing a deistic stance.]

The last part of the book returns to evidences and challenges to these evidences including ten philosophical concerns not addressed directly in the debate. The very end of this section and the appendix deals with the use of Bayes Theory of probability. I found this most interesting as it has been invoked in a number of discussions with atheists, usually by atheists, arguing that the probabilities of God’s existence, or the resurrection fail to reach a threshold where belief is warranted. I will admit to not fully understanding the mathematics behind this argument, but found that the author confirmed my suspicion of the arbitrary character of assigning probabilities, which often reflect a priori beliefs rather than evidence per se’. I think more work needs to be done in answering this line of objection, which on the face of it sounds persuasive because of its quantitative nature.

As I noted at the beginning, the resurrection is essentially the lynch pin of Christian faith. For the person struggling with doubts or considering the credibility of the resurrection claim, this is an excellent first book, because it reflects a real conversation between two people with opposing views. We see the intellectual honesty of Antony Flew, who had the courage to change his beliefs when that was where the evidence took him. In the public and private conversations between Habermas and Flew we are given a model of dialogue and inquiry that is substantive, charitable, and intellectually honest in a public square nearly bereft of such conversations.