God at the Crossroads of Worldviews

God at the Crossroads engages the question of God’s existence within theistic—Roman Catholic and Protestant Rationals—and atheistic—scientific materialism and/or secular humanism—worldviews. The text contains an extensive review of literature that presents continuums of thinking related to epistemology, truth, and history. Most arguments appear to be “incommensurable”—having no common ground, or on the opposite side of a spectrum. Author Paul Seungoh Chung proposes a new way to bridge these conversations, however, it may be unlikely that the other side of that spectrum will assent to a conversion.

Relying on a holistic reading of St. Thomas Aquinas’s demonstration—God’s existence of God by Five Ways—and with support from similar arguments from Alasdair MacIntyre, Chung shows that we can transform the argument for, or against, God’s existence. Chung’s proposed solution is to revise the “context and frame in which such arguments function, and their significance in the debate, will be different” (13). By engaging discussions within common concepts the tension between theist and atheist is “dissolved” (13). He completes the claim that the Thomistic synthesis of Greek and Augustine Catholic thought created a new way of viewing the argument about the existence of God: the reconciliation of ideas resolves differences.

Worldviews are tacit beliefs and, in most cases, may be invisible to the holder. The complexity of historical, ideology, and cultural milieu in which worldviews develop makes asserting the veracity of one worldview over the other nearly, or fully, impossible. Chung contention is that a revised approach is needed.

Chung draws out the concept that modern atheism began after the Reformation, during the sixteenth century. Atheism thus grew out of, and along with, the Protestant claims of autonomy, and the questioning of “ecclesiastical authority” in both Europe and the Americas. During the Enlightenment—and the developing modernity periods—views regarding science led to religious skepticism and humanist declarations that prompted secularized politics and education. The counterreligious claims negate the individual elements in the Five Ways, changing philosophical assumptions about God and humanity, and disputes over the accuracies of Christian scripture. God became either an object of study, or eliminated as superfluous. Today, atheist’s hold that God is a projection of the human psyche. According to Richard Dawkins, the belief is that religion inhibits true human progress and thriving (The God Delusion, Mariner Books, 2006). Atheism asserts that human beings are their own cause. Can there be a reconciliation of these views between theism and modern theism?

For scientific materialism, and by extension atheism, Chung identifies that “the ‘laws of nature’ may function like the word God” (216). These laws reflect a universal, absolute, eternal, and omnipotent—nothing is superior or outside them—reality of material. The properties of nature curiously relate to what the theist attributes to God. For the materialist, real science is venerated while biblical interpretations of science and historical inaccuracy of scripture discount certain Christian claims

There are those that hold that the Bible is not a scientific or historical text, for example John F. Haught’s God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (Westminster John Knox Publishing, 2008). Rather, that the Bible reveals the mysteries of God and it is through revelation that the knowledge and character of God is perfected by the Holy Spirit. God creates nature and science. He is outside, around, and through the natural laws of nature. God conserves nature, and calls on all to be in relationship with Him.

The critical question is are we being asked to venerate “the laws of nature” as we venerate God? This presents a fundamental problem. To equate attributes of “the laws of nature” with God is misleading. The properties of the “laws of nature” exist in space-time. God and “the laws of nature” are existentially different. The “laws of nature” are contained within God’s created universe. They are subordinate to His spiritual laws. By definition, God is eternal and universal, His spiritual laws are equally eternal and unchanging in all worlds. Our understanding of “the laws of nature” may change, but God remains the one true constant. Theists believe that there will come a time when this world—the cosmos—will end. Jesus Christ will return to judge all creation, including human beings, according to the actions performed in response to God’s grace (Romans 1 and 2). That said, it may be that all study in philosophy and science are acceptable when viewed within the context of the Gospel. Caught in this disconnect, where are the theist and the atheist?

Chung’s proposal appears to fill this gap. Theists and those with secular worldviews may find common ground within some of his framework while maintaining the principles and dignity of each person. This approach leaves a dialog open, as a time may come for a productive synthesis.

It is possible that theism and atheism are so far apart that there are no crossroads. For example, it seems very unlikely that theists could overcome Friedrich Nietzsche’s supposition that “God is Dead,” or Jean-Paul Sartre’s claim that human beings have the power to create themselves. We may find we cannot agree with strong atheistic arguments that God, and that belief in God, is immoral. Consider Chung’s final statement: “at such a crossroad, arguing about God existence will become the telling of a story—a story of a journey of ourselves and our rivals, in which both sides are invited to see what had been so familiar and prevalent in their past travels in a new, transforming light, one that will illuminate their path forward” (232). The door is open for dialog and community while encouraging charity and love. The interlocutors in this debate are left with love, hope, and dignity.

David C. Martin is an independent Roman Catholic academic with research foci in worldviews, religion, spirituality, social constructionism, and higher education.

David C. Martin

Date Of Review:

March 15, 2017