Evidence For God: A Case for the Existence of the Spiritual Dimension

This is a good, scientifically based (in the sense of being rationally argued) view for God's existence. Following Keith Ward's earlier arguments found in "More Than Matter", it is well written and easy to read-one does not have to be a philosophy professor in order to follow it (though I am one). Having taken a seminar with Keith several years ago, I can say that this book is just as entertaining as he is in person. A fine application of Idealism to the theological debate.

I haven't finished this because I just got it on Kindle late last night but it was hard to put down. So far it's very interesting. I like how the author writes; not at all dry or boring like some lecturers & not at all preachy. I'm really happy to have found this. I'm a life-long Christian; but, I think because I hardly know any Christians (especially mature ones) I enjoy these kinds of books. I have found several good ones..."The Case for Christ" for example written by "Lee Strobel" who's a converted atheist. Mr. Strobel interviewed several experts (his is very different from this one but I Highly Recommend it!)*UPDATED* REVIEW* Unfortunately, I have to change my review from "5 stars" to only 1 star. The author rambled on & on. It seems like he just wanted to hear himself "think" as if he was writing in a journal/diary. Sorry, but my journal makes better sense. The more I read the more boring & tedious it became until I couldn't understand a word he was saying. At first I thought it might be me...but no, it wasn't.

excellent copy

The book is as described.

I have probably not underlined so many passages in one book before. This is definitely a work that I will refer back to again and again.

Haven' t read yet, but Keith Ward is one of the better authors for understanding modern interpretations of the Christian faith, giving reasons for our beliefs.

Keith Ward, FBA (born 1938) is a British philosopher, theologian, priest of the Church of England. He was Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford between 1991 and 2004. He has written many other books, such as  Why There Almost Certainly is a God: Doubting Dawkins , God, Chance and Necessity , More Than Matter?: Is There More to Life Than Molecules? , The Big Questions in Science and Religion , Religion and Human Nature , What the Bible Really Teaches: About Crucifixion, Resurrection, Salvation, the Second Coming, and Eternal Life , etc.He wrote in the first chapter of this 2014 book, “I think [David Attenborough and Brian Cox] are quite wrong when they discount spirituality. I also believe that science itself points in a very different direction. There is a huge amount evidence for the reality of a spiritual dimension to the world, and human life is going to be very different if the idea of God … disappears. But the fact that there is a huge amount of evidence has become so little recognized that it is going to have to be argued for.” (Pg. 2)He continues, “I will look at six main areas of human experience: at the arts, at morality, at philosophy, at science, at religion, and at personal experience. In each area, I will try to show that there are special experiences of values, and that these experiences are evidence for the existence of more than simply physical facts… When you take all these areas together, the evidence builds up to an impressive argument for seeing the world that we experience as communicating spiritual values---a ‘sense for the spiritual dimension’ that is beyond and yet expressed in and through physical facts…. I want to argue that… there are lots of human experiences that are, taken together, good evidence for the Spirit… Belief in Spirit will not be a mere leap of faith without any supporting evidence. It will be a fully rational and sensitive approach to the richest at most important parts of human experience.” (Pg. 10-11)He cautions, “It should be clear that looking for evidence for God, of for Spirit, or for spiritual reality, is not going to be like looking for evidence for some exotic animal… If you wonder whether there is a reality of supreme understanding, beauty and bliss, you are not going to find that out by looking for visible marks that some physical object makes. Spirit is not a physical object, so we will not be looking for evidence for something physical… Maybe that is why some scientists say there is no evidence for God or for spiritual reality…. So it is not surprising that there is no evidence OF THAT SORT. A different sort of evidence is needed.” (Pg. 6-7)He observes, “There is no ‘proof’ of one supreme spiritual reality from artistic experience. Art is too various and expressive of too many different perspectives on reality… What art does is to open a window onto depths of meaning and value in reality. In that sense it is evidence for the existence of objective values… not merely constructed by human minds, values which can have real existence… Art is evidence for a spiritual dimension to human experience. This does not get you to God. But there is a problem for a materialist… how can they exist, if the universe is wholly composed only of purely physical elements? It is at this point that the postulation of a non-human mind… in which ideas of beauty exist… strikes many as reasonable and natural.” (Pg. 19-20)He argues, “I am saying that belief in objective moral facts is entirely reasonable and entirely natural. If God exists, moral facts is entirely reasonable and entirely natural. If God exists, moral facts will have a natural and intelligible place in reality. That makes moral experience evidence for God, as well as for some rather different , non-theistic but definitely non-materialist, views.” (Pg. 30)He acknowledges, “Looking for evidence of cosmic purpose will be very different from looking for evidence that some rare physical animal exists somewhere in the universe. But there are certainly considerations that count for or against the existence of purpose…. I accept, however, that the evidence is not of the sort that will convince everyone… That fact will nevertheless help to make my main point, which is that evidence does exist, but that there is no way of conclusively establishing a conclusion to everyone’s satisfaction. Therefore it is false to say that there is no evidence for cosmic purpose. And it is false to say that belief in a cosmic mind which formulates such a purpose is somehow less rational than disbelief or agnosticism about such a mind.” (Pg. 38)He suggests, “Some religious people think that a perfect God would never create anything evil, so that everything that happened would always be good. If that was true, then God would never have created us!... maybe God need not have created us. But if God wanted to create us, with all our faults and failings, maybe God had not much choice about the basic laws and forces that would make up our universe.” (Pg. 45)He explains, “The God theory is not a scientific theory because it makes no detailed predictions about the future. That is hardly surprising… It does make some predictions---goodness will triumph, evil will be eliminated, the righteous will see God. But these predictions are not testable at the moment, and mostly lie far in the future, or even in some other form of existence. The job of the God theory is not, however, to provide predictions. It is to provide a basis for believing that the universe, and each life in particular, has a unique and valuable purpose which is given to it by a being of supreme perfection and power who can ensure that purpose will be realized.” (Pg. 68)He asserts, “Nobody seriously thinks that God just sets the universe going, and then ignores it altogether. The real question is… whether the whole universe, at every moment, depends on some deeper reality beyond itself… The universe does not keep going by itself. It is a consequence … of deeper goings on beyond our space-time… All the theist adds to this is that the deeper reality is conscious and purposive, not blind and pointless. This cosmic mind does not just set the universe going. Without its continued existence and support the universe would not exist at all.” (Pg. 74-75)He proposes, “the psychologist William James… made some suggestions about rational believing… Some of these beliefs will be ‘vital’---they will be of great practical importance… I have argued that the belief that there is a spiritual dimension to reality is such a belief… If such a belief is supportive of personal values and commitment to living a good human life, that is a good reason for accepting it, for trying it and seeing if it ‘works’—if it makes for a good, happy and fulfilled life… it would be irrational to ignore the inclinations of the heart towards the good, which help to make us fully personal beings.” (Pg. 135-136)He concludes, “This is the goal of the spiritual life---to know Spirit in all things, and to know all things in the Spirit… Spirit is not only real, but the one enduring reality that is expressed in everything that exists, and yet is infinitely beyond anything that can ever be fully expressed and understood by us… It is the heart of the idea of God. It remains for many millions that which is most fully real, the goal of life’s greatest journey, and, so millions hope, is it what lies at last to be revealed beyond the vail of this world’s time.” (Pg. 138)This book will be of keen interest to those looking for “evidence” for God/Spirit that is not simply “scientific” and dryly “factual.”

This short book by Keith Ward builds, from principle and observation, a case that having belief in the existence of God is a credible position. He spreads his net wide in capturing the broadest concepts of what, or who, God or Spirit is and in so doing is able to assemble observations from many religious traditions and spiritual belief systems. His evidence-base, however, is the existence of non-physical “supreme” values, objective and experienced in domains of life as diverse as art and beauty, morality, philosophy, science and personal experience; indeed he argues strongly for the validity of personal experience as evidence. Morality in this context derives from a purposefully made physical universe. These values from “outside” of our time and space point ultimately to a mind, to purpose, values and God.Ward rightly debunks a common, materialist view that empirical data and science are the only logical ways to address the question of the existence of God. He points to the fact that evidence on both sides of the argument about the existence of God is inconclusive but concludes it is valid to commit “oneself to a belief which is well but not conclusively evidenced”.Ward is a clear thinker and an honest presenter. This book has a flow which draws the reader along and enables understanding. The demand is to keep mentally questioning the premises presented and in doing so the book further gains in value. Those with an open and enquiring mind will find a helpful framework within this book.

The author hails from a class of romantic, pleasant, polite Christian thinkers -- Tolkien among them -- and it shows throughout the pages of this book. It is definitely not a theological summa, though it breaks through the stuffy materialism of the past century in a way that will pique the intellectual curiosity of the reader, especially if they are of an atheistic bent. Overall, a fair introduction to idealism.

Doesn't seem to be from a faith perspective. Philosophical arguments without much authoritative substance.

This book is highly accessible to all and well worth a look. He takes many points and uses descriptions and arguments not often seen in apologetics

If you know what to look for, you will find it. Atheists don't know what to look for.

Brilliant!

Definitely a must read as one Christian Idealist challenges the status quo with grace and elegance.

This latest book is yet another positive contribution to Ward's prolific pro-theistic publishing project.A compact and accessible book from a leading Idealist philosopher and Anglican writer. Ward is moving away from animadversion, i.e. writing books in direct reply to Richard Dawkins, and the result is a clearly structured book which has a lively pace and momentum. Stephen Hawking's recent work is engaged with a number of times but Ward avoids getting bogged down in point-scoring.Ward is targeting what for him is a new readership, people who reject explicit theism but who nonetheless consider themselves to be spiritual. Whether they will decide to stop off at the local church/synagogue/mosque on the way home from the yoga class remains to be seen.

This is the latest in a long series of lucid books by Keith Ward examining the case for rationally grounded theistic belief. If you are already familiar with Ward's previous books on this topic, there are some new themes covered here which will alone justify the cost of purchase for many readers. This is the first book in which Ward addresses in detail the provocative argument, put forward by Stephen Hawking in his book 'The Grand Design', that M Theory (a variant of string theory) will ultimately prove to be the one true 'Theory Of Everything', eliminating the few remaining gaps in scientific explanation that allow a residual creative role for a deity. Interestingly, while other theists (such as John Lennox) have taken Hawking sternly to task for his perfunctory dismissal of philosophy, Ward appears to concede that the quantum vacuum fluctuation postulated by Hawking could, in principle, be the eternally existing, necessary being found in traditional cosmological arguments for God's existence. It isn't clear whether this means that Ward's commitment to theism has weakened. Taken as a whole, the book sets out a relatively robust defence of the traditional theism associated with Aquinas, St Anselm and Leibniz. But agnostic or atheist readers could be forgiven for thinking that Ward is simply presenting the latest in a long series of 'God of the Gaps' type arguments.'The Evidence for God' also gives Ward an opportunity to comment on Thomas Nagel's important recent book 'Mind and Cosmos', which was a serious attempt to address the obvious failings of reductionist materialism within a thoroughly naturalistic metaphysical framework. Nagel is an atheist but rejects any suggestion that the human mind could have been an accidental evolutionary development. He argues that 'neutral monism' (a metaphysical position traditionally associated with Spinoza) offers the best hope for explaining how the universe became 'self-aware' through the evolution of conscious observers. On this view, 'mind' is an ineradicable, emergent feature of nature, but nature does not set out to create conscious beings for a specific purpose or goal. Ward rejects this view, arguing instead that the existence of the human mind, and the entire spiritual dimension of existence, is a clear indication that the cosmos was created for a purpose by a necessary being with personal attributes - namely, the 'mind of God'. Prima facie, this is a compelling argument, but it is vulnerable to criticism on several fronts, as discussed below.Even when I don't agree with Keith Ward, I always have a nagging sense that at some fundamental level he must ultimately be right, even if he is not altogether successful in showing how the pieces of this infinitely large jigsaw (which the Red Indians used to call 'The Great Mystery') fit together. Ward has thought very deeply about the mystery of existence, and debated these issues at length with scientists and other philosophers over several decades, and his defence of rational theism seems philosophically sound for the most part. As always, he highlights very effectively the shortcomings of materialism as a theory of ultimate origins. One possible alternative to materialism, as Nagel recognises, is the type of pantheistic monism traditionally associated with Spinoza, who was uncompromising in his rejection of any deity with anthropomorphic qualities. But Spinoza was also a thorough going determinist who appeared to deny the existence of free will. To be a consistent Spinozist, it seems necessary to deny the existence of moral autonomy, at least with respect to past events. But if we cannot legitimately praise or blame people for the moral consequences of their past actions, what objective basis is there for morality, ethics or religion? Is everything reducible to subjective preference? Surely not. No-one would consider it sane or reasonable to talk about the Holocaust, for example, in those terms.Ward argues, in this and other books, that the traditional judeo-christian emphasis on moral autonomy is very important to any debate about man's place in the cosmos. The perception that we enjoy at least some freedom of action (and can easily recognise when it is taken away from us!) is a fundamental feature of how human beings experience the world. No amount of reductionist reasoning can argue the point away, and this seems to lead naturally to a concept of deity as the 'personal ground of being', rather than the impersonal deity of Spinoza who acts solely and deterministically through timeless laws of nature. Ward's understanding of the importance of free will seems correct as a starting point for debate. But like Descartes he seems unable to explain how mind and body interact if they are genuinely independent of each other. Without a coherent theory of mind-body interaction, idealism struggles to get off the ground intellectually, even if it seems intuitively correct.There is an additional, even more serious, difficulty. God as traditionally conceived by the monotheistic religions possesses personal qualities, such as the ability to create things with a specific purpose or goal in mind. But would this type of deity create a universe in which suffering and tragedy exist? Ward's unhesitating answer is 'Yes' - on the basis that it may not be possible, as a matter of either logic or fact, to create a good world without at least the possibility of suffering. This seems to limit God's omnipotence and, like most Christian attempts to address the problem of evil, what Ward has to say on this topic doesn't strike me as particularly convincing. It just doesn't seem to do justice to the magnitude of the problem. What possible divine purpose or goal could justify or even explain the still birth of a deformed baby, forever deprived of the possibility of sentient existence?My own feeling, for what it's worth, is that a modified version of Spinozism, which eliminates supernatural intervention but also allows the possibility of free will, is probably the most promising way forward for those who reject atheism but find traditional Christian solutions to the problem of evil unconvincing. There is good reason to think that the cosmos is all that exists, but that there is far more to it than mere matter. A world which operates on the basis of fixed laws of nature, but also allows scope for free will, would explain the existence of suffering while at the same time allowing room for moral autonomy. But I have yet to see a rigorous and compelling case made for this view. At times, in this book, Ward seems to hint that this is his own position. For example, he rejects traditional views of a 'personal God' as excessively anthropomorphic. But his own concept of God as the 'personal ground of being' still seems closer to traditional theism than to anything Spinoza or Einstein could comfortably subscribe to.If you are new to Keith Ward's writings, the essential starting point is still 'God, Chance and Necessity', written in the 1990s when discoveries concerning the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of nature were encouraging scientists and theologians to talk to one another again. Subsequent developments in cosmology and philosophy haven't significantly weakened the cogency of the arguments presented in that book. 'The Evidence for God' is for those who want to keep up-to-date with Ward's latest thinking or an antidote to the reductionist materialism found in the polemical writings of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. But this book may not be best place to start if you want to understand the strength of the logic underpinning Ward's position on these issues.

Excellent case for god, clearly expressed and very fair minded.

Brilliant!