Having certainty about God
In Dr. Seuss’s Horton Hears a Who, Horton the elephant is challenged by the kangaroo over the possibility of life on a tiny speck of dust. Annoyed at Horton’s insistence that such small persons exist, the kangaroo declares: “If you can’t see, hear, or feel something, it doesn’t exist!”
And yet Horton remains certain they do exist. But certainty can be a funny thing.
Just ask Karl Popper who is generally regarded as one of the greatest science philosophers of the twentieth century. In an interview he gave to Scientific American before his death, Popper – who was known for his intense attacks against dogmatism – went so far as to say “scientific certainty doesn't exist”, which no doubt raises eyebrows among those who think that science is the only vehicle providing us with certainty about anything.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
But what does Popper mean when he says you can’t have certainty with science? Does he mean absolute truth doesn’t exist?
“No no!”, the article records Popper saying. Popper, “like the logical positivists before him, believed that a scientific theory can be “absolutely” true. In fact, he had “no doubt” that some current theories are true (although he refused to say which ones). But he rejected the positivist belief that we can ever know that a theory is true. “We must distinguish between truth, which is objective and absolute, and certainty, which is subjective.”
But is certainty a subjective thing?
Psychologists and philosophers will tell you that there are two types of certainty. We have epistemic certainty, which equates to something having the highest possible status regarding knowledge, and then there is psychological certainty where you or I are supremely convinced of a truth, even though what we believe may be false.
It’s the latter that Popper refers to, and it’s also the type of certainty that Christians are accused of having without any backing of the former by those who contend God doesn’t exist. This leads to the million-dollar question of whether one can have both kinds of certainty about God.
Prove it
Professor Paul Copan was once confronted by a student who demanded, “Prove to me that God exists.” Copan replied, “What would you take as an acceptable level of proof?”, at which point the student assumed a deer-in-the-headlights pose because he’d never thought about what would be satisfactory evidence for God’s existence.
How about you? If you’re an agnostic or atheist, what would it take?
Whether it’s God or anything else, having knowledge and arriving at a conclusion about something involves forming a belief based on warrant that leads to truth. Simple to say, but sometimes hard to do.
Where God is concerned, it’s normal for skeptics to think they have the higher ground in this matter whereas in reality, the atheist, agnostic, and God-believer all make claims, with those assertions requiring justification and each bearing the burden of proof. In other words, the playing field is truly leveled where the God / no God debate is concerned.
So, again, with that being the case, is it possible to have both epistemic and psychological certainty about God? My answer is ‘yes’, but it’s a qualified one requiring some honest admissions up front.
First, let’s remember that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It’s possible that God could exist even if evidence for Him was nonexistent, although, admittedly, it would not be the most reasonable position to assume.
Second, when it comes to beliefs in our post-truth culture, it’s hard to disagree with Pascal who said: “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” And let’s acknowledge that sword is double-edged where belief in God and atheism is concerned, i.e., both can hold beliefs because they like what the worldview teaches.
Next, let’s also highlight the fact that the Bible concedes we don’t have perfect knowledge about God, with Paul saying: “For we know in part…now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:9, 12, my emphasis).
That said, although “we know in part”, what we do know – what we do have – is enough to reasonably believe in the God of the Bible. I go over the reasons why in my presentation series, The Essentials of Apologetics, which you can freely view.
But if we have good evidence for God, then, as R. C. Sproul asks in one of his books and messages, why are there atheists?
It’s because, in addition to epistemic and psychological certainty, there is a third dimension to assurance when it comes to accepting truth about God. It’s why the Bible says there are those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).
Paul underscores the reason when he says people refuse to “receive the love of the truth so as to be saved” (2 Thess. 2:10). Notice that it’s not just truth, but the “love” of the truth.
The sad reality is we’re born into a natural state of rejection and rebellion against God and His truth, which is why Scripture says, “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:14). With this third dimension to certainty about God malfunctioning in us, we’re unable to achieve the state of receiving “the love of the truth” and reaching a state of rightly acknowledging the Creator and His place in our life.
But that said, the Bible declares everyone knows God is real “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 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” (Rom. 1:19–20).
Understanding this leads to the reason why Pascal’s statement is so important – it highlights the critical distinction between assenting to truth and consenting to it. You can acknowledge truth without ever subjecting yourself to it. We do it all the time with bad health choices, doomed relationships, etc.
Paul’s declaration in Romans is also why the ridicule skeptics hurl at Christians about needing faith to believe that God exists falls flat. There is an important difference between faith that vs. faith in. The latter is all about trust and fidelity that is oftentimes outside the bounds of philosophical, empirical, and historical verification whereas the former is open to all three.
In the end, brilliant people achieve certainty about God and other brilliant people do not. Epistemic and psychological certainty can only get you so far. We all need God to rewire our spiritual dimension and then “The Spirit Himself [will testify] with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16).
Once that’s done, we can confidently nod in agreement with Scripture when it says: “Have I not written to you excellent things of counsels and knowledge, to make you know the certainty of the words of truth?” (Prov. 22:20–21, my emphasis).
Robin Schumacher is an accomplished software executive and Christian apologist who has written many articles, authored and contributed to several Christian books, appeared on nationally syndicated radio programs, and presented at apologetic events. He holds a BS in Business, Master's in Christian apologetics and a Ph.D. in New Testament. His latest book is, A Confident Faith: Winning people to Christ with the apologetics of the Apostle Paul.
