Scientific Demonstrations
This is not to deny, of course, that religion has always horribly abused this authority. Nowhere has so much deception been practiced, on a large or small scale, subtly or crudely, than in the area of religion. Demagogues have exploited this divine authority to further their own selfish ends. Priests have set themselves up as mouthpieces of God's will to hold people in bondage and make them serve the priests' advantage and power. Superstition, witchcraft, fortune-telling and many other barbarities have entwined themselves around the stem of divine authority like parasitic plants. The injustices and atrocities committed throughout history in the name of religion are countless. Broad and deep is the river of blood and tears shed by all religions to the greater glory of God.
But all this detracts nothing from the fact that divine revelation and divine authority are the basis of religion. Rather, these acts tend to confirm this tenet, for men fought one another to the death because they were convinced they were serving the cause of God and promoting the interest of the highest good. This again points to the fact that, in distinction from science and art, religion demands a divine certainty. The human soul can find complete rest only in God; it is fully satisfied only by an infallible authority. The preacher is, therefore, powerful only when he brings the Word of God. Without it his proclamation has no influence and power. Who but God gives him the right to climb into the pulpit above the people, to hold up to them the rule of faith and life, and to bind their eternal weal or woe to their acceptance or rejection?
Scientific Demonstration If this is so, it raises a more important and more difficult question:
Where and how can that divine authority be found which properly demands our recognition and obedience?
In answering this question we begin with the unadorned admission that it is impossible to completely solve this dilemma in the abstract.
In science one cannot begin to isolate the proof introduced for a given proposition so that all other conflicting presuppositions held by the subject remain out of play. All proof presupposes a starting point common to those for and against, a foundation recognized by both.. It is impossible to reason with someone who denies all principles. Both the proofs as well as the presuppositions on which they rest vary from science to science. They are different in mathematics and in the natural sciences; different in the philosophical and in the historical sciences. They differ in composition, in number, in powsr snd in the degree to which they depend on the subject and his attitude.
Mathematical proof presupposes the least; it therefore has the most universal validity, possessing a very compelling character. Logical proof proceeds from a great many more presuppositions and as a result often leaves the other party unconvinced. Historical proof makes an even stronger appeal to the subject; as a result, it is often weak, in many cases producing, no more than a degree of probability.
But whatever proofs the sciences introduce, they always build on the unity and coherence of human nature. Hence, they also build on faith in the reliability of the senses, in the validity of the rules of logic, in the existence of a knowable truth and in the veracity of God. They are based on many metaphysical, logical, psychological and ethical presuppositions which are pre-established, self-contained, selfevident and unprovable, but which are the vehicles of all proof.
Those who would delve beyond them in order to begin with doubt alone undermine the foundations of science and make all certainty impossible.
This is even more true in the area of religion. No one has been raised devoid of all religion and morality so that he can now stand neutral and unprejudiced to all religions. To attempt to prove the truth of any religion to such an abstract, bloodless being who exists only in the imagination would therefore be a futile waste of time. Everyone
learns to speak a certain language as a child, and in that language he receives all kinds of religious and moral concepts, which as a rule he retains to the end of his life and which rule all his thinking and willing.
The modern method, which seeks to study all religions without making any prior judgments so as to select one at the end, runs into all kinds of insuperable practical and theoretical objections.
Everyone immediately sees the impossibility of such an attempt to rid oneself of all convictions and preconceptions planted in the heart by birth and breeding before and during scientific investigation.
Even in a thoroughgoing unbeliever the religious impressions of childhood continue to exercise some influence. And even theological faculties, although they may have been converted into faculties of religion,* continue to feel the influence of their Roman Catholic,
Lutheran, or Reformed origin and environment.
*A change from confessional theology to the comparative study of religions, (trans.) Moreover, the method of arriving at the pure religion through a comparative study of religions also deserves to be theoretically condemned in the name of science. Whoever studies the various religions under the auspices of any scientific discipline proceeds from the belief that they are something other, something more than a pathology of the human spirit. He proceeds from the truth of religion as such, and thus from the existence of God, from the value and right of metaphysics, from the idea of unity and development, plan and purpose in the history of religions. In order to study the religions, compare them, judge them according to their true, distinct values, we require a standard, an idea of religion, no matter how vague and general, which precedes such study and evaluation, and which guides and rules it. A purely positivistic conception of science is untenable not only in theology but also in the science of comparative religion.
The study of religions has, furthermore, achieved one important benefit: it has shed clear light on the superiority of the Christian religion over all other religions. There are, it is true, a few scattered groups in Europe and America who give precedence to Buddhism or Islam and have formally switched to these religions. And much greater are the ranks of those who feel they don't need Christianity, can lead rich lives without it, and hate it all their lives. In fact, untold numbers are turning their backs on Christianity in humanistic pride or in practical indifference and are seeking satisfaction in paganism.
Yet, none of this detracts from the fact that the religious and ethical makeup of Christianity is far superior to that of all other religions.
Nowhere else are nature and history, man and world, heart and conscience conceived with such intimate truth and so true to reality as in the Christian religion. Our self-knowledge and our knowledge of the world continually verify the knowledge of God revealed in Holy
Scripture. This is the light on the path that leads through creation, and which is itself clarified and confirmed by all of nature and the whole history of mankind. We have no idea what we would be missing, into what dire spiritual poverty we would sink if the Christian religion and all its influence and impact were suddenly excised from our society and culture. If the Christian religion is not the true religion, there is every reason to despair of truth in the area of religion. Practically and concretely the question regarding certainty of faith comes down to this: In what way can the truth of Christianity be demonstrated and impressed on our souls so we are convinced?
There are primarily two ways that are recommended. One is the way that first demonstrates the truth of natural theology through the proofs of God's existence and of the independence and immortality of the soul; this approach then derives proof for the truth of Christianity from the reliability of the apostles, the prophecies and miracles of Holy Scripture, the teachings and life of Jesus, the continuance and spread of the church, etc. This method seeks to convince us by reasonable, scientific methods.
This way is not forbidden, impossible or unprofitable. Even the prophets, apostles and Jesus Himself used it to move their listeners to faith. Jesus' miracles are signs of His Sonship and He demands belief in His person, that the Father is in Him and He in the Father, on the basis of the works He did (John 10:38). Christian theologians have always made use of these proofs in order to silence opponents and clear a way for faith. They give the defenders of Christianity the weapons with which to repel all kinds of scientific attacks. These proofs enable them to skilfully defend themselves against criticism that subjects the object of their faith to science. And Christians are able to show that as much, and usually more, can be said in support of faith than of unbelief.
It is therefore wrong to deprive oneself of these proofs because of doubt and distrust, retreating behind the bulwark of mysticism and agnosticism. Anyone who despairs beforehand of his cause renders himself unfit for the battle and prepares for defeat. In the scientific arena, too, believers are called to give a reason for the hope that is in them and, trusting steadfastly in the Tightness of then-own cause, to stop the mouths of their opponents and repulse their attacks.
Christianity does, after all, have a historical side. It encompasses God's eternal thoughts as they have entered into temporal forms. Its focal point is the incarnation of the Word and it rests on a revelation with a long, rich history that comprises part of the world as a whole, and as such is accessible to historical study. Although the proofs may be insufficient to move someone to believe in the truth of Christianity, on the other hand belief in that truth would certainly have no right to exist if this revelation could be proved to be unhistorical. For faith is not only trust, it is also knowledge and assent and cannot live by cunningly devised fables.
The proofs for the divine testimony of the Holy Scriptures at least possess the power to make it clear that to believe is not unreasonable or nonsensical. We certainly don't have recourse to mathematical proofs, but these are not available in any area of history. History is