Home » Academics » Lecture Hall

Does God Really Exist or are We Only Dreaming?

What follows is a slightly modified e-mail exchange between a fellow professor named Charlie (not his real name) and me.

To: Michael Bauman
Subject: A Parable

Michael:

An atheist died and went to heaven. St. Peter asked him: "Do you regret denying God's existence?" The atheist said: "Only if you can demonstrate I am not now dreaming." St. Peter said: "If I tried and I failed, then we would both wake up."

– Charlie

To: Charlie
Subject: Re: A Parable

Charlie:

This parable you sent me is an abstruse recitation of the age-old idea that perhaps our reality is not actually real — that we're all possibly dreaming. As this logic goes, if we can't be sure we're experiencing prime reality, then perhaps God is not real and our conceptions of Him are false as well.

Three points:

(1.) If an atheist truly died and went to heaven, as this parable asserts, and was met there by St. Peter, then he wouldn't be dreaming. In other words, this parable begins by presupposing the falsity of the "dream theory" it contains. And yet, it goes on to assert the theory anyway. It's self-stultifying. For the parable to be consistent with the theory it contains, it would have to begin by saying the atheist might have died and gone to heaven, but we just aren't sure (after all, what can we possible sleepers really be sure of?) Then you'd have to tell us he might have said such things to St. Peter, but we just don't know (being possibly asleep right now ourselves).

But a story told that way is hardly compelling stuff, which is why you didn't tell it that way, even though the logic of the parable's point required it. We all know 20 centuries of Christian theology will not be overturned with that kind of fictional supposition. To undermine Christianity, one needs facts, not dreams.

Rather than being consistent with the very dream theory you want me to think about and to take seriously, you yourself don't seem to take it seriously by telling this story in a way that conveniently ignores or denies the possibility that we all are dreaming. When you get to the dream theory, it certainly doesn't sound like a dream. If I were an English teacher, I'd tell you the parable's narrative strategy belies its narrative point. You want me to believe both your narration and your point simultaneously, even though it's clear from this parable you yourself do not.

So which do you want? Did he go to heaven or didn't he? Did he talk to St. Peter, or is it all a dream? We can't have it all ways at once. You employ both a knowledge-of-reality theory in the telling and an anti-knowledge-of-reality dream theory in the tale.

For this to be a solid case, one that doesn't refute itself, the parable has to be self-consistent. When it is, it loses what little logical power it had to begin with. If our atheist really did such things, and still maintained his dream theory, he'd be a sadly mistaken fool. If none of these things happened — if he just dreamed them — then he's still asleep and we don't need to pretend his dreams are actual rational arguments that pertain to a non-dream world.

(2.) Think of it the other way round, Charlie. That is, reverse the scenario: If the atheist were really dreaming, he might wake to find there is a God, and that he himself is in hell. Who knows what he'd actually wake to find? He might wake to find his wife in bed next to him on a pleasant Saturday morning. Or he might wake to find his house on fire because Martians are barbequing the insulation in his walls as part of their 14th annual "We Love Fiberglass for Lunch" picnic.

Atheism based on imaginary dreams and on what you might find when you wake from them — or on the possibility that everyone is dreaming and that everything is a dream — is hardly compelling. After all, if we all might be dreaming, the atheist is caught in the dream too. How do we know this atheist isn't dreaming his atheism and he'll wake to find atheism is false and now he's undone forever? The parable simply assumes the opposite. That assumption is no valid basis for accepting atheism or for rejecting Christianity.

But you contend that we could all wake up — even Peter and the saints in heaven! — to find theism is false. In other words, this already self-contradictory story also begs the question it poses — a second fatal logical error in a story just four sentences long! You think (or else you dream) that others must live with this dream theory but that you do not. That's why you made the mistake you did in point number one. If it's all a dream, you're stuck too. This dream theory is autophagic: It eats itself up. If it's true, dream theory is just a dream along with the atheism this dream theory allegedly supports.

So tell me, Charlie, are we awake in the real world or not? If we're asleep, atheism is only a dream. But if we're awake in the real world, this dream theory is a mistake. Or, to ask the same question in a different way: Do we have real and dependable knowledge or not? If we do, then reject your dream theory. If you have real and dependable knowledge, say so and prove it. But if you don't, and this dream theory is true, don't concern the rest of the world with dreams. You must decide if this dream theory is true or false, and then live — and argue — accordingly.

We can't have it both ways. We must either admit the falsehood of dream theory, or else realize that dream theory says atheism is a dream as well. It even says that you might wake from your dream to find you are still dreaming. In that case, you dream of dreams. This parable is just the Queen Mab passage in Romeo and Juliet posing as theological argument. Mercutio, you'll notice, is no fine theologian.

In other words, the parable presupposes that if something (in this case belief in God) is just a dream, then it can't be trusted and shouldn't be believed. But, of course, the same is true of atheism, which — if dream theory is true — is also just a dream and can't be trusted. And if dreams aren't to be trusted, and if all is a dream (as this dream theory proposes), then dream theory itself is just a dream that can't trusted. Yet, this parable about dream theory (a.) denies dream theory in its very telling, (b.) says dreams can't be trusted, and (c.) if true, is itself a dream and a theory that cannot be trusted.

You can see why I'm still a Christian in spite of this parable.

(3.) Dreamers, you must admit, construct lousy arguments and make lousy argument evaluators, which is why students who sleep in class don't often get good grades. We lecture (or intend to) to those who are awake. You've probably noticed that lectures aren't held at night in the dorms, but during the day in classrooms. It's a good policy, I'm sure you'll agree.

By the same token, parables are helpful only to those who aren't dreaming. I can't think of the last time I told a parable to someone I thought was asleep and expected him to understand it. The fact that you sent me this e-mail tells me you don't think everything is just a dream. Did you hope for a dream reply from a dream person at a dream e-mail address, or a real one? Your sending this e-mail denies the dream theory your e-mail postulates. If you and I are awake and have access to real knowledge and real persons, let's argue like it. If we are not, let's just sleep on.

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

What do you think Charlie’s "dream theory" parable?

Join the discussion!

Please don't think a self-contradictory, question-begging, four-line story containing a dream theory can sink the ship of faith. We might as well attack Gibraltar with a pop gun as try to tear down what Christ Himself promised to build, and has built, for centuries. The gates of hell won't prevail against it, much less an assault of dreams.

– Michael