Can someone give me ONE LOGICAL REASON to believe in God?

Someone asked the question "Can someone give me ONE LOGICAL REASON to believe in God?" on a facebook bulletin board. I got tired of scrolling through the very poorly thought out replies to such a question, so on spot 1333 I replied with this:

A Raging Moderate Searches for Truth, part 1: On the limitations of scientific knowledge

Over the centuries, many great Christian thinkers have either taught that theology is a "science", or that "scientific methods" can be used to established the truths of theology. While theology can be construed as a sort of science (i.e. following the lead of Aquinas who defined it as a "sub-altern" science), I think that to hold theology in bondage to the "scientific method" is to deeply damage both theology and science. They are simply different kinds of knowledge and different kinds of knowing, and to conflate the two, or to use one to back up the other is simply wrong headed. One look at the creation-evolution debate is a good example of how neither science nor theology come out winners when used to "validate" one another.

We fixed the wedding, now let's work on the marriage

Isaiah 62:5 ...As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

After a decade of self-study in historical and systematic theology, a year of graduate study of Christian history, and another year of graduate study in the history of doctrine, a thought has crystallized in my mind: The Protestant reformation largely fixed the problems of our "wedding" with Christ, but it is not sufficient to fix the marriage.  Let me explain...

Theologically Correct Bible Songs (part 1)

Part of a series dedicated to revealing the concrete effects of imbalanced theologies by re-writing hymns and children's songs as if the theology were actually true.  The songs are somewhat funny, obviously badly warped, and certainly nothing we would want to teach our kids or congregations.  And yet, I think they faithfully carry out the explicit logical conclusions of certain types of theology.  If the theologies are correct, and something that people can actually believe, then WHY NOT sing these songs?  But, if the songs are horrendous, how can we keep believing the theology that underlies them (even if in a kinder, gentler, more nuanced version)?

Enough logic.  On to the songs...

Irrelevant appeal to authority???

Rejecting the so-called "appeal to authority" is a tactic used by all kinds of "skeptics" to "debunk" ideas that they do not like. Most frequently I encounter this tactic in discussing God with people who claim not to believe in God. Usually, it turns out that I do not believe in the God they do not believe in either, because they are not actually discussing the Person whom I know as God, but that is another point entirely.

When someone appeals to authority, they usually put it in terms such as "Because [Person/Institution/Source X] supports [Truth Claim Y], then I support [Truth Claim Y]". Usually, in debates about God, it goes something like this "Because the Bible says [Y], I believe [Y]. God says it, I believe it, and that settles it." Nontheists rightly argue that this proves nothing, because the reliability of the Bible is still in question. It may say that Y is true, but how do we know it is accurate in what it says? I mean, there is the issue of who wrote the Bible and when, and whether these writings are authentic and accurate. Then there are the textual issues of how well the text has been preserved, even if the original text was accurate. And then there are issues of interpretation, linguistics, and historical-cultural context, not to mention genre and purpose, in considering how to understand the text. Then there is the question of what presuppositions we bring to the text, and if there are other legitimate ways of understanding the text. All of these must be considered before making an appeal to Scripture to support a certain truth claim.

Only little minds can have faith in God and the Bible

Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. But now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he made the universe and everything in it. The Son reflects God's own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven. (Hebrews 1:1-3)

Is faith just a crutch for the weak?

There is a familiar rejection of faith and God (and the Bible) out there that goes something like this: "There are no reasons to believe there is a God anyway, and the Bible is so unreliable and full of contradictions that no reasonable person could ever believe in it. Religion is just an opiate for the masses, and faith is for those who cannot prove what they believe."

I believe two things about this statement. First, I believe it is improbable and false, and I will spend the rest of this chapter discussing why. Second, I find that it is usually not based on rational, intellectual grounds, but its true basis is emotional. Someone is angry at God or the Church, so they manufacture intellectual reasons to justify their emotional stance. I believe these issues are dealt with in the previous eight chapters.