9.5 Hugh Montefiore
(1985) 'The Probability of God' SCM Press Lymington
Early on in his book, when explaining the plan of his enquiry for evidence of God in the natural world (a natural theology), Hugh Montefiore presents the following response to his project which he elicited from Don Cupitt,
"Whilst a subjective commitment to God may be satisfying to the self, it lacks credibility to others unless it is shown that to believe in God is to commit yourself to framing your life project in certain categories. Faith is the choice of a way of life, a God-oriented life. To prove that faith rational, I do not argue that something cosmic exists,. Instead I try to show the rationality of faith by spelling out what the life of faith involves and showing the meaning and the worth it gives to life. Thus Christianity is to me, as to the man in the street, a way of life; and rational in so far as it can be shown to be the best way. Its proof is practical, not the proof of logical demonstration, but the proof of testing in life."
For Montefiore, the metaphysical problem still exists. Is God real or not? Is religion simply a search for personal authenticity, or is it the disclosure of a meaning and purpose in the universe as a whole? The man in the street, wants to know, 'Is there anybody there at all?', or do we just have to make the best we can for ourselves in a universe which is in itself random and meaningless ?
Natural theology means thinking about God in the natural world solely by the light of reason. There are those who deny natural theology because they believe that there is no point of contact between God and man other than the divine revelation in Jesus Christ. In other words, we can only respond to the Word of God spoken by Christ, and in no other way. This is not so much because God has not revealed himself in his creation, but because human minds, through their fallibility and sinfulness, cannot recognise that creation is the testimony to God.'
Montefiore could not understand how God can be the God of all the earth unless there can be real points of contact with him in addition to the Word spoken in Christ. Also, the idea that non- Christians are so totally blind that they can have no authentic knowledge of God was reinforced by his Jewish heritage.
In writing his book, Montefiore claims he was addressing the major issue facing the Christian church today- it speaks in a language of faith which seems to have little relevance to the ordinary workings of the world in which we live, and which makes sense only within the charmed circle of Christian believers. He felt that this has added to the marginalisation of the church, His belief is that if God created the universe, then we would expect to see his footsteps within it as a set of probabilities supporting a belief in the existence of God. He then proceeded to look in turn at various aspects of the universe in which we live, and also at various insights into and experiences of the human condition. He argued that a convergence of factors from these different considerations makes it far more probable that God exists than the contrary. He summed up his conclusions as follows:-
" If God exists, he is self-existent, necessary Being. If we are to regard his existence as probable, we would not merely expect him to leave his footmarks, by the act of creation and by pointers to design in the evolution of the cosmos and in the development of life. If he intends human beings to emerge from the evolutionary process who are capable of freely entering into communion and fellowship with himself, then we would expect such beings to be aware of him, and to experience the moral and aesthetic and spiritual values of which he is the source. And this is just what we do find. It seems to me far more probable that the experience of moral aesthetic and spiritual values are explained by God who is their source, rather than that they are the product of the human mind. It seems to me much more probable that the experience of conscience is due to the existence of God rather than it is merely the result of psychological mechanisms of the brain. It seems to me even more probable that religious experience which is very widely diffused is due to the existence of God rather than that it is totally based on illusion.
I must admit that I have no proof of this. Atheism remains always a possibility. But I would hold that on the evidence atheism is wildly improbable. It is always possible that there is no explanation of the universe - it could just be a brute fact, ultimately meaningless. It could also be that there are natural causes for the explosion of the big bang which brought space and time out of a singularity', even though it does not seem sensible to speak of causation operating before space and time existed. And if there are natural causes for the big bang, it could be that there is a scientific explanation of all the factors which brought it about. It is possible that the extraordinary 'coincidences' which enabled the universe to develop the way that it has are only extraordinary to us because out of an infinity of universes one was bound to turn up 'in the end' in which human beings evolved who would be capable or reflecting about it - this is possible even though by the nature of the case there can be no evidence for any universe other than our own. It is possible, in the same way, that we have the particular 'constants' in our universe that make life possible because ours is merely one of an infinite number of universes, and 'sooner or later' (only of course out of time nothing is 'sooner' or 'later') precisely these 'constants' were bound to turn up. Again it is possible that for the same reason the extraordinary cybernetic controls which have enabled life to maintain itself on the planet are the random product of a meaningless universe; almost infinitely improbable, it might appear, but among an infinity of universes and galaxies and stars and planets, bound to turn up 'in the end'. Again, you could say (and you could not be positively disproved) that the whole marvellous pageant of evolution on the planet is meaningless, totally the chance working of genetic mechanisms; or, if you agreed that matter has a tendency to assemble itself in a way that has enabled life to evolve from cell to homo sapiens, you could say that this is a very remarkable and extraordinary coincidence, but no more remarkable or extraordinary than the other coincidences which have been discussed, and one which would inevitably occur in an infinity of universes. You could go on to say that man's intuitions of morality and goodness and love, and his experience of moral and aesthetic values, are the random products of chemical processes in the human brain, and not a window into reality. You could add that all man's religious experience and spiritual intuitions are totally illusory. You could say that man's apparent requirement of faith in God in order to achieve his greatest potential and to meet his deepest aspirations and personal needs, is merely a psychological quirk. You could finally conclude that out of sheer coincidence all these factors have come together in human existence and there is no God.
In my judgement the convergence of all these factors makes it far, far more probable that God does exist than that he does not.