The Witness of the Holy Spirit, and What is Rationality Anyway?

"Christians aren't rational!  They deny reality and believe in magic..."  And so on.  Find me an atheist on the internet who hasn't typed something similar to that quote and I'll find you a unicoon named Mr. Frumples.

Mr. Frumples

Let's get serious for a moment.

Atheists love to accuse Christians (and other theists) of being irrational.  This can be somewhat intimidating for Christians, if said Christians don't have a solid foundation for their beliefs.  The goal is to put the believer on the defensive.  You're expected to explain exactly how you're not irrational, which is a game you can't win because the atheist will force you to play by their rules.  I don't like being on the defensive, and so for the purpose of this article I'll put the atheist back on the defensive. 

What does the witness of the Holy Spirit have to do with this?  Well, keep reading to find out.

[edit: If this post seems a bit rushed, then it probably seems that way because it is.  I'm on limited time, so this isn't my best writing.  Hopefully it's good enough.  I'll give it a day or two to spot check any errors in organization or clarity, but I wanted to post something without having to spend too much time on it.]

Rationality

First off, we have to know what we mean when we talk about rationality.  How can someone be rational?

We'll be dealing primarily with two kinds of beliefs.  1). Basic beliefs.  2).  Beliefs derived from those basic beliefs.  I'm not going to explain those concepts just yet, but keep them tucked away in the back of your mind because I'll come back to them when I'm done with rationality.  

First, when atheists say that Christians are irrational, what they're really saying is that Christians hold beliefs which are inconsistent with atheist philosophy.  Of course, atheists won't word it this way because doing so doesn't carry the same rhetorical force, and because it opens their philosophy up to scrutiny. 

But that's not what rationality is.  We can't simply define rationality as atheism, otherwise if atheism were false then it would be wise to be irrational.

If we are to be more accurate, then we could think of rationality a different way.  Specifically, rationality is holding beliefs which are consistent with a philosophy which itself is consistent with reality.  In other words, you have to start with a philosophy which doesn't contradict what can be known about reality.  Then, with that philosophical framework in place you can justify your beliefs.  If you contradict your own beliefs, or if your philosophy contradicts reality, then you are not being rational.

It might seem like this causes a problem.  Two people with opposing beliefs can both be rational based on the idea I just laid out.  But it's not really a problem.  Since oftentimes we cannot "prove" either viewpoint right or wrong, then we must accept that so long as those beliefs are consistent and realistic, they are rational.  In this way it's possible for atheists to be rational just as its possible for Christians to be rational, even though both of them cannot be correct.

Saying that someone is "rational" is not the same as saying "their beliefs are true".  One can hold false beliefs (so long as they don't know them to be false) and still be rational.

If I'm not making sense then I'll try and lay it out in a more simplistic way.  Let's say Bob believes that God exists.  He knows of no evidence to the contrary, and so his belief hasn't contradicted reality.  From here he reasons that God is the foundation of morality.  He may be wrong, but he is not irrational.  At no point has he contradicted what he knows about reality, and his beliefs are internally consistent.

So far so good?

Consider the opposite example.  An atheist believes that only nature exists (God does not exist).  He then reasons that morality is a biological function of the brain, and has no grounding outside of the human mind.  He may be wrong, but he is being rational so long as he isn't contradicting what he knows about reality.  In fact, he's being rational even though he has no evidence to prove that morality is just a product of the human mind.  Evidence is not always a requisite to belief.  

Hopefully you're picking up what I'm putting down because now we have to move on.

Christian/Atheist Rationality

Are Christians, in fact, irrational?  Well, starting with belief in God, much of what Christians believe to be true is rational.  We believe in things like moral realism, which means that saying something is "wrong" means that it's wrong regardless of opinion (to put it simply).  This issue can be debated, but the fact remains that the idea that God is the foundation of morality (or the measure of morality) is not irrational given the belief that God exists.  

On issues like these, where can an atheist say that Christian's are being irrational?  

Atheists might appeal to science, and point out that science hasn't found any "grounding" for morality outside of the human mind.  However, science cannot find a grounding for morality.  The belief that there is or is not a ground to morality is an issue of metaphysics, which science cannot answer.  So calling beliefs like this "irrational" assumes that atheist metaphysics are true in the first place.  What reason do we have to believe that atheist metaphysics are true?  It is the burden of the atheist to establish first that their philosophy is true, before they can establish that Christians are irrational for holding beliefs inconsistent with that philosophy.  

This extends to many, many issues.  Remember this the next time you're told by an atheist that you're "irrational".  When they call you "irrational", what they're really saying is that your beliefs are inconsistent with their philosophy.  

I hate to be the one to have to say this, but no duh.  Obviously what Christians believe is inconsistent with atheism.  We're not atheists.  Atheists can feel free to call Christians irrational all day long, but that's about as profound as saying, "You have different beliefs than me!"  Okay....so what do you want to do about it?

Now, the sharp atheist might point out that Christians believe things which run smack up against what we know about reality.  The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of those beliefs.  Generally speaking, people don't rise from the dead.  So, how do we justify this sort of belief?  This is pretty important, because the resurrection is the central doctrine of Christianity.  

Now, you may believe as William Lane Craig and myself do that there is evidence supporting belief in the resurrection.  But let's say that there was no evidence in favor of the resurrection.  Is a Christian irrational for being a Christian in the absence of compelling reasons to believe that a rare miracle occurred?  To answer this, we get to the next issue.

The Witness of the Holy Spirit

Whenever I talk about this issue, atheists get all hot and bothered.  This is a difficult to understand issue, so hopefully I'll be able to lay it out in terms that make sense.  In fact, I just hope that I haven't misunderstood it myself.  I think the reason atheists are so bothered by what I'm about to talk about has to do more with misunderstanding than disagreement. 

Christian doctrine states that Jesus rose from the dead.  Okay, but if you're a Christian how do you know it's true?  Think about this for a second.  If you're like most Christians, you probably believe this even though you've never seen evidence supporting it.  

"I just have faith."  Yes, and no.  Okay, sure you have faith.  But it's not enough to just say you have faith.  You could have faith that a unicoon named Mr. Frumples exists.  But you probably don't.  Why not?  What separates your faith in Jesus from your lack of faith in Mr. Frumples?  Even if you can't articulate the distinction between the two, there is probably a distinction at the core of your thoughts.  Allow me to give you my thoughts and you can decide if you agree.

What is the difference?  The witness of the Holy Spirit.  

Many Christians have what they believe is evidence, which independently verifies their beliefs.  Now, that's all well and good but if we're being realistic, the vast majority of believers don't have access to the evidence, or perhaps there is some other barrier to independent justification for their beliefs.  So why should they continue to believe?

Well, first we have to talk about basic beliefs.  Basic beliefs are those things which we accept as true just by nature of our experience.  For instance, if I were an extreme skeptic I might say, "The outside world is an illusion, and other people don't really exist but are just a part of this illusion."  I can't prove otherwise, so I either accept that my senses are tricking me or that I can't know whether or not they're tricking me.  This is called solipsism, or the belief that only your mind exists and you cannot know anything about the external world.  

On the other hand, if you're like most normal people you accept that reality is real, and other minds than our own do exist.  Alvin Plantinga would say, and I would agree, that this is rational.  We cannot prove that anything our senses perceive to be real is actually real.  However, it is natural for us to believe that the external world exists and other minds exist, and so it is more rational for us to simply accept this to be true.  

One might say, "Well I believe we're actually in a computer simulation like the matrix."  This is well and good, and no one can prove you wrong, but we also have no reason to believe the way you do.  Why should I reject my experience of reality as false?  I see no reason to.  My mind tends to believe that reality is real, and so I believe it is.  

Building on this, the Christian has one extra thing that is natural and is built into his/her mind:  the witness of the Holy Spirit.  A Christian with this witness experiences God as part of his/her reality, and furthermore the witness inclines them to believe in Jesus.  The atheist might say this begs the question, but why should it?  If it is a part of my reality, and my mind is inclined to believe it, why should I reject it?  

Let's assume that Christianity is 100% certainly true.  Now imagine a poor Christian in, say, Nigeria who has no evidence to believe in Christianity and only has the witness of the Holy Spirit.  If Christianity is true, why would they reject this witness just because they don't have the luxury of evidence and reason to confirm the witness?  

An atheist doesn't have this witness and so they might say that the Christian is begging the question.  But this is not an argument for why someone should believe Christianity is true in the absence of evidence.  This is an argument for the personal, rational basis of someone's belief.  I would say that if you don't have this witness then perhaps you have no reason to be a Christian until you're provided with evidence, but if you suddenly realized that you had this witness in your heart then you have reason to believe even without evidence.

What about Muslims?  Perhaps they can claim the same thing?  Sure, they can claim that Allah speaks to their heart and they are naturally inclined to be a Muslim.  Okay, I would say they're wrong and I would give them independent arguments that would attempt to show their beliefs are false.  However, I cannot call them irrational for believing. Their beliefs are consistent with their perception of reality.  That is rational.  (Although I would note that Muslim doctrine doesn't, as far as I know, contain any concept of Allah's "witness" to believers).

This is what atheists don't get.  You can't just go around calling Christians irrational.  If I have a personal experience of the Christian God, it means nothing for you to call me irrational.  In fact, it would be irrational for me to discard this witness without some independent evidence compelling me to do so.  Just as I would be irrational to claim that only my mind exists and everyone else is just an illusion.  

If atheists want to keep accusing Christians of being irrational, then the burden is on them to establish that the witness of the Holy Spirit that we perceive internally is fraudulent.  Good luck.