My friend and fellow Guinness Book of World Records holder has an interesting comment for me about my last post:
“I believe that if a Higher Power does exist, demonstrations of existence and the creation of miracles are an unnecessary proof. I think that these are the requirements of a scientifically driven society, but we must not assume that since it cannot be proven physically means that it does not exist. Perhaps it would be more correct to assume that since it cannot be proven physically then it does not exist in our particular universe. I am going to assume, for the sake of example, that you love your wife. Now you know that you love your wife. Love is not something which can be measured or quantified or even seen and yet you know that it exists. Perhaps it can be physically recorded in synapses or chemical changes in the body, but these examples cannot begin to explain the feelings, the attraction, or the care that is associated with love. You could buy her flowers, cook her dinner or give her a massage, and yet none of these actions are necessary or truly define what it is to love. I believe that this is a quality that a Higher Power would possess. How can one quantify love, understanding, sympathy or empathy? And how would these things be measured? And yet, I believe, they exist.”
I wanted to respond more thoroughly to this than in the comments section.
Certainly I think it is difficult to quantify something as nebulous as “love.” It is also quite easy to perceive that love exists outside of these compassionate and thoughtful actions which the feeling of love motivates. In fact, let us assume that is true: Love exists outside of the actions which it motivates. Now, let us presume that those actions, buying flowers, cooking dinners, giving massages, and even chemical changes do not manifest themselves in any way. Then how can we figure that love even exists? You could only say that love exists outside of some physical realm that we can perceive with our mundane senses. And yet, we learn about love through the actions of people we presume love us. In fact, if they do not act in ways we perceive as love we come to question whether or not they love us at all! How often can someone say they love you without showing the constant and subtle and overt actions that convince them it is true before you really question their feelings for you? This is the impetus for the now overused cliche, “But what have you done for me lately?”
I presume that we all think that love could exist without the associate actions, but I don’t think anyone would be very confident about assigning loving to a person who never acts lovingly.
The same with god or Higher Power. Certainly, we can presume that a god exists outside the realms of perception but without objective actions or proofs of communication there is certainly reason to question it’s existence. We may feel that god exists for us, but if it doesn’t exist for us all then what is missing? Either love and god are subjective human experiences that occur within our realm of mundane senses or it is of no use to us.
I am also putting aside the fact that something supernatural cannot affect us by definition. Otherwise it would be a natural occurrence.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Can you help me understand and/or give me examples of what you mean by “objective actions or proofs of communication”? I can think of a very long list of items that would fit this description, but I know there are many others who probably wouldn’t accept them.
I would say that an objective action or proof of communication would be any action or communication this can be agreed upon by the majority of observers as having been presented by a god in much the same way that a majority of observers would agree that a coffee mug is indeed a coffee mug upon closer inspection. I’d like to add as a caveat, since I know your religious proclivities, that even if you could prove a god of some sort has communicated with us I challenge you to present any objective proof that a particular god has communicated with us in some objective fashion.
So, best case scenario, what would it take for God (or any god) to satisfy your expectations with objective proof? What would you hope that would look like? Best case scenario.
If we are talking Christianity, a Second Coming would do. I’ve said before, if Jesus were to return in the manner described in the Bible I (and I imagine everyone, as it is written) will instantly become a Christian, by definition, in the same way everyone believes in water. Not because people are told about the legend of water passed down through generations, but because everyone on earth knows what water is from direct experience. There is no need to have faith in water. But you must have faith in Christ.
I use Christ because I know that is what you believe in. But really, anything will do. Krishna coming down for all the world to see, Thor cracking some lightening, Hercules hurling some boulders. Anything that is claimed by any world religion actually occurring will do. Nothing that has any other scientific explanation.
Faith. You said in your last post (Part 1) that, “The idea that faith ought to play a role in the belief in God is absurd.” I gotta tell ya, I think that thought is…well…absurd. You probably exhibit faith every day. Any time you use public transportation or car pool, you have faith that the driver/pilot/friend will get you there in one piece. Every time you eat anything prepared by someone else (i.e. restaurant, friend’s home) you have faith that your food was prepared properly (i.e. good hygiene, the cook didn’t taint your food for revenge). These are just a couple of examples, but in either case, you are actually trusting other people with your very life. It really is no different with faith in God. Because I have faith in God…faith that God exists, faith to obey as God leads, etc…I am trusting Him with my life. And He is much more trustworthy than the average driver or chef.
But that still doesn’t prove God actually exists, does it? I found the examples of objective proof that you gave a little surprising, actually. God has literally done all of the things you mentioned, the biggest thing being “coming down for all the world to see” in the form of Jesus Christ. Yes, time has passed, and You and I haven’t seen Him with our own eyes. But I wonder if it would really make a difference for you and others. There were so many who saw Jesus when He was on earth, but they still didn’t believe that He was God. Even though they saw Him with their own eyes and heard His claims with their own ears, they still had to use that pesky thing called faith…they still had to take Him at His word. Most of them didn’t. He was killed by those kinds of people for being a heretic. So don’t be fooled…seeing God with your own eyes won’t seal the deal. Yes, there will be a second coming (which, by the way, implies a first). And yes, every one will acknowledge God. But no, everyone will not instantly “become Christian” (which means to follow Christ). They will finally speak the truth that Jesus is Lord, but they will not become followers of Christ. Even Satan has already acknowledged that Jesus is Lord, but he will never be a follower of Christ.
The other thing I’ve been thinking about is this: Why do you think that God owes you proof that He exists? God is perfect. We are imperfect. He owes us nothing. That being said, even though He owes us nothing, He has given us a million reasons to believe He exists. Then He has given us a million more to show us how much He cares for us.
You said that “everyone on earth knows what water is from direct experience.” At some point in each person’s life, each person experienced water for the first time. Before that time, they wouldn’t have know what you were talking about if you told them about water. But after they actually saw/felt/tasted water, they knew what water was. Everyone doesn’t automatically “know what water is from direct experience” until they’ve actually HAD the experience. Once a person has experienced water for themselves, you can’t even talk them out of thinking that it doesn’t exist. I would suggest that the same is true for Christ. Even though many people first hear about Him from “the legend…passed down through generations,” they won’t truly believe it until they have experienced it for themselves. You and I are both living proof of that. I have experienced Him in so many ways; to me He is as real as water. And it all comes down to one thing…wait for it…faith.
You might be surprised to discover that I don’t really exhibit faith every day. I don’t presume that a driver will get me to a destination unharmed. I don’t presume the MTA will get me where I’m going on time or unharmed. And, I would argue, neither do you. These are calculated risks that we take each and every day of our lives. And with these calculations we try our best to minimize those risks. We leave 10 minutes early so we can drive defensively or take the earlier train, for example. But do I have faith in the MTA or even my own driving? No. I understand that I could die at any moment.
There is a huge difference in trust in a person or institution and faith in a god you’ve never seen. Trust is something that you build. I don’t initially trust a person with my life or have faith in their cooking. That kind of trust has to be earned through repeated actions on the part of both parties. In other words, we both must act in earnest for trust to build. If I don’t act trustworthy neither will the other party and so trust either never builds or it deteriorates. Not so with faith. Faith is something that must be given regardless of the actions of the other party and without cause. It is not earned but must be given fully and in spite of the god’s actions. Worse for the Christian God! God historically and currently works to test the faith of His followers by causing actions so horrendous as to cause loss of life, health, and wellbeing. And you still meant to be faithful. Ask yourself this: If you trusted your friend to drive you to work and he deliberately made you very late, to the point where your job was jeopardized, all for the expressed purpose of testing whether or not you will let him drive you to work, would you ever trust him to drive you to work again? In fact, would you ever trust him for anything? What if he deliberately poisoned you to test whether or not you would continue to eat food he made for you? What if when you told him you wouldn’t eat his food again because he poisoned you he becomes enraged, claiming you don’t trust him?
Faith actually has a lot more in common with loyalty. Loyalty must be given fully in spite of the actions of he who would demand it.
If I saw Jesus with my own eyes would I believe it? It depends. If He comes down in the manner it is predicted, then, probably. If not, then why should I believe Him? Should I just take Him at His word? Would you? That’s the real question. If Jesus were to return today as the poor son of a carpenter, claimed he was the Son of God, began with a small group of followers a mission to subvert the modern church and challenge the global rule of the United States (currently, the contemporary Rome, the most powerful empire of the time) would you believe Him? Would you drop everything and follow Him? In fact, there are many people right now who do this very thing without claims of godhood. And the very instant that claim is made everything else he stands for would be tossed out the window. He would be called a crazy man and dismissed, no matter how valid his stance on every other issue.
God owes us nothing? Much the same way our parents owe us nothing? Much the same way you owe nothing to your children (You have kids, right?)? I suppose. I actually don’t think God owes us proof of His existence. I’m satisfied that there is no proof of His existence. But of the “million reasons” to believe there is a god it’s interesting that you haven’t enumerated a single one. Not that it would matter. My whole thesis is that proof of a god would be self-evident to everyone on an objective level. But humanity can’t even agree on what kind of god or even how many there are! And it’s not because people don’t want to believe. Everyone wants to believe. Even some atheists want to believe in some kind of supernatural. But no definitive standard of the supernatural is apparent.
You mention on the point of water that once a person has experienced it “can’t even talk them out of thinking that it doesn’t exist. I would suggest that the same is true for Christ.” And yet, no one talked me out of believing. I stopped believing because it was apparent that a god doesn’t exist. I still believe in water. The thing about water is that cultures may have different names for it but they all have the same definition. The same cannot be said about a god. There have been so many different gods with so many different definitions and only one water. And the definitions for god changes from culture to culture and person to person. Water is the same in everyone’s mind. Water needs no church. Water needs no holy writ. Water is everywhere and completely self-evident and everyone experiences it in the exact same way. That is what water is and what a god is not.
I’m more than willing to provide you with a list of reasons why I believe God exists, but I knew from the beginning that it wouldn’t matter. All of my reasons are based on the acceptance that God is sovereign and holy. You would just explain them all away with naturalistic or humanistic responses. But again, if you are genuinely curious, I am willing to oblige.
So, back to the water analogy. Like I said before, if a person has never experienced water, they wouldn’t know what it is. In the same way, if you believe there is no God, it’s because you’ve never experienced Him. I would argue that the reason no one had to talk you out of believing in God is because you’ve never actually *experienced* Him. I don’t mean that in a judgmental or disrespectful way; I just know that it’s not possible to truly experience God and then genuinely deny He exists. If you had truly experienced Him, you wouldn’t be able to call yourself an atheist. What you call your “belief” in God was actually a quasi-belief in “the legend…passed down through generations.” This only proves my point that you won’t truly believe in God until you have experienced Him for yourself, regardless of what your parents told you. The same is true for me.
I’m going to try to break it to you gently…your whole thesis that “proof of a god would be self-evident to everyone on an objective level” is just flat-out wrong. You want a god who will fit neatly into your image of what a god should be. You want a god who is experienced exactly the same way by everyone. You want a god who follows your rules. And that’s exactly why there are so many gods…because most human beings create their own. “Humanity can’t even agree on what kind of god or even how many there are” because they don’t want to acknowledge the perfect, holy God who answers to no one. They can’t handle a God who doesn’t make sense to them. How arrogant (of anyone, not just you) to think that God has to either make sense and be agreed upon by some sort of consensus or He doesn’t exist at all.
I don’t want a God that “everyone experiences in the exact same way.” We are all unique with different personalities and life circumstances. God is so much better than something that everyone can experience the same way. He is personal! He is exactly what you need, when you need it. He is comforter, provider, strength, peace, healer, counselor, and so much more. No one experiences Him the same way. With that in mind, He will also not be anything that doesn’t match up with Scripture. In other words, all of these “different gods with so many different definitions” aren’t God at all if they don’t match up with the God of the Bible. I can stare at the sand and call it water all day long, but it doesn’t mean that the sand is really water. (I realize that last sentence seems to be from left field, but just chew on it a while and you’ll get what I mean.)
)
You’ve presented more questions, and I’m completely willing to address them. But consider this: my belief in God doesn’t make Him exist any more than your disbelief makes Him non-existent. So why do you spend so much time talking about a God that you don’t even believe exists? I think you’re as obsessed with Him as I am. No kidding.
(Disclaimer: I am so certain and passionate about my belief in God that I can sometimes come across as a-little-less-than-humble about it when communicating in the written form. I wish you could hear my tone when I “say” all this. Forgive me if any of it seems condescending…I certainly don’t mean it that way.)
I understand that you aren’t using a disrespectful tone and I generally try to take that into consideration in written debates.
However, I think you are speaking a bit out of turn when you qualify my own experience of God. You actually don’t know how sincere my experience of God was. You only presume it couldn’t have seen true or sincere because it fits into your presumption that no one who has truly experienced God would ever turn away from him. And yet there are literally billions of people on Earth who do not believe in the Christian god, a large minority of people who have converted to a different religion, and a large minority of people who have rejected the notion that any gods exist at all. This is an easy out. It is convenient and wholly presumptuous to think you know the heart and mind of another individual.
I daresay I could easily qualify your believes as well. What do you suppose the chances of you being a Christian had you been born in India? Or a Native American before Columbus? Or a Tibetan living in the mountains? It’s pretty safe to say you would adhere to whatever respective religion is indigenous to that culture. Instead you were born in a predominantly Christian nation in a predominantly Christian community. It’s actually not a surprise that you are indeed a Christian just as nearly every other person that I know from that community is. It’s also not surprising that my father’s family are all devout Christians as they are from strong Christian communities. It is also no surprise that all of my mother’s family are devout Buddhists having all been raised in a predominantly Buddhist culture. In fact, being Buddhist is so ingrained in the national identity that Christian missionaries have trouble converting Thais!
As far as objective proof of a god, well, yes. I do want a god to prove himself objectively. And those aren’t my rules. Those are the rules that govern reality! When I say “water” we understand each other because we have a common objective experience of water. If a god were to be so subjective depending on “different personalities and life circumstances” then it renders the concept of a god meaningless. We can speak of a table because we agree on the meaning. If we can’t agree on the meaning of God then what is the point in speaking of Him? (I believe the Taoists actually come closest to this concept of God even better than what the Christians consider as the infinite God.) The best you can do is say “I felt something.” If you lived in India your parents would have told you that feeling was Ganesha or Vishnu. And so you would be a pious Hindu.
But the belief that a god of the universe may exist is a totally different debate from which religion is the true religion. As far as these religious institutions are concerned there is absolutely no evidence at all that any religion on earth has it right. It’s more likely, in fact, that they all have it dead wrong.
Penultimately, I’m not particularly obsessed with God. I only speak of it because I see a strong push from the Religious Right in America and other parts of the world to mandate specific religious teachings that go against any sense of liberty and propriety that we, as Americans and world citizens, have. Of course, all of these things which are highly authoritarian at it’s core, are often mandate by a Holy Writ that supersedes any kind of secular democratic aspirations a people might have. Also, for all of the positive actions associated with religion (which originated with secular humanist anyway) the major deficit is that religion reduces the human capacity for reason.
Lastly, I’ve only written this out because I was approached by people in a public park who wished to discuss religion with me. It was lively and I thought it was worth repeating.
Thanks for being gracious about my tone.
I’m not trying to qualify your experience of God. I just find it odd that you can say that God doesn’t exist in one minute then in the next minute you’re claiming that you’ve had an actual experience with Him. Which is it? It can’t be both. You are welcome to say you’ve had an experience with Him and have now chosen to reject Him, but you can’t have it both ways.
You’re welcome to speculate on my relationship with God. I must say I’m thankful and blessed to have been born to Christ-following parents. But believe me when I say that I’ve prayed so many times for my own children to love Jesus in spite of me (not so much because of me). I am so imperfect, and while I do the best I can and want to point my children toward Jesus, I could just as easily cause them to stumble if they focus on me instead of Him. I know how this works…I have imperfect parents, too.
You probably think I’ve just gone blindly along with what I’ve been taught all my life. But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve questioned it. There’s always the “I can’t prove it 100%” factor (faith). And then there’s the Holy Spirit. I can do a lot better than say, “I felt something.” So how do I, personally, know He exists? I have the Holy Spirit–the inside dwelling God–in me. It goes way beyond feeling. Nor is it about religion. I’ve come to despise being called religious. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I have a relationship with God Himself. You’re completely right; all religions are dead wrong. Religions are self-centered ways for a person to create their own god (including atheism). Most people fall into the religion trap…even many people who call themselves Christians.
So, I feel like I’ve struck a nerve. You seem to be on the attack here. Your last response seems quite a bit more dogmatic than usual. But then again, maybe it’s just me…since I fit under your “religious” umbrella, maybe I have that problem with reduced capacity for reason?
I’m not attacking. I’m defending.
You may reject religion, but you certainly fit into the religious umbrella. If you were not religious you could have a personal experience with God without the limiting confines of Holy Writ. The Taoist speak of God (or an Ultimate Reality, an essentially infinite being) as something you cannot define and the moment to try to express it in words you’ve completely limited Him. In other words, no holy text could ever possibly define God in any sense, and the harder they try the further away they get from the truth. This is why the Tao Te Ching spends so much time describing how much one can’t even speak of God. Words only limit your experience by confining Him into their respective and limited connotations.
As far as my experience with God, I felt something profound, deep and wondrous, and it made me feel like I was tiny and yet connected to something great at the same time. At the time I would have called it God. Why? Because that is the world I grew up in. That is the language I was taught. No one else was offering me another word to describe how I felt so what else could I call it? That’s the pitfall of growing up immersed in one particular culture. You will define all of your experiences within the context of that culture, most peculiarly with language. You may consider living in another culture for a time. I think you’ll find that others, non-Christians, describe their spiritual experiences in the exact same way as you, but with different words. In fact, you can see how deliberate I am when writing “god” or “God.”
As an atheist I still have feelings of the profound. I choose not to describe them as God because I’ve had those experiences under different contexts. You can say, as I’m sure you do, that these profound experiences do not equal the profundity of a personal relationship with the Christian god but you risk qualifying my experience and the experiences of 4 billion people. Incidentally, that’s a lot of people who aren’t fortunate enough to be born within a Christian society! Even more so if you consider the idea that most Protestants don’t think Catholics are truly Christian. It’s amazing to me that one might be born to the wrong Christianity. But I digress.
Also, I didn’t reject God. I reject the notion that gods exist. It’s a very different idea. Rejecting God would mean God exists and I rebel against Him. What happened for me, and nearly every other atheist I’ve met, is the realization that there is no god or gods. This why atheism isn’t a religion as much as religionists like to think it is. (Which only proves that you are one. Otherwise, why would you attempt to limit or alter my own experienced based on your own? That is dogmatic by definition!) Atheism is a frame of thought, not of philosophy of being. Atheism often comes after a profound and long search for God. I think this is what most people don’t understand about atheists. I’m not an atheist because I never truly looked for God. I am an atheist because I looked for God and found nothing.
Theological debate is like a state of the union address… you don’t need any facts.
Love is no analogy for God, love is an analogy for chaos. It’s messy and unpredictable. I may believe in God.. I also may believe in elves. That’s my business. But I gave up on theology back in college when I realized all the stuff I was studying was a waste of time, as I would learn it all again when I died. So I went in another direction.
Of course you “have feelings of the profound.” That’s because you were created in God’s image. He has created inside each of us the ability to interact with Him. It is your choice as to what you attribute those profound feelings. God will never force you to worship Him, have faith in Him, or even believe he exists.
Can you clarify what you mean by having had “profound experiences under different contexts?” It leads me to believe that you think I only have “profound experiences” when I’m in church or something. Am I misunderstanding?
I have evidently led you do believe that I think I’m the judge of all, having the power to determine if anyone has the proper relationship with God. It is important that I clear up that misunderstanding. I would not consider myself to be the judge of anyone’s experience of God; that is for God to decide. What I can say is this: unless a person’s relationship with God is rooted in faith in Christ Jesus, his belief is not in the only true God; it is in a lifeless, powerless god. Jesus is the only way to God. As far as I am aware, Christ-followers are the only ones who trust someone other than themselves to be reconciled to God. All religions are based on trusting in self to gain eternal life or the equivalent. To follow Christ means the opposite–denial of self.
Look, Levi, I’m not so naive to think that a word of what I’m saying will make any sense to you or anyone else. Only the Holy Spirit can take my words and speak to your spirit to reveal any truth. None of that is dependent on me.
If you consider this a waste of your energy, just say the word. Wait a minute…you already did. The only reason I’m “wasting” my time is because you are worth it.
If I thought this was a waste of time I wouldn’t be here. I don’t think I ever said that though. You might be confusing me with someone else.
Profound experiences have nothing to do with being in church. That being said, I’ve had profound feelings under Christian contexts, Buddhist contexts, atheist contexts, etc. All have felt the same. It’s an overwhelming emotional experience and extremely validating for anyone who doesn’t have to proper language to describe it. It’s difficult to explain in words which I why I think humans created gods.
I don’t think you are the judge of all. I’m not even insinuating that. To put it bluntly, I’m say that you clearly rationalize your own experiences by diminishing the experiences of others. It’s necessary. Especially when your own dogma requires that everyone else be wrong. How can a relationship with Jesus be the most fulfilling without all other experiences being deficient by definition? I’m not saying you are doing it on purpose or maliciously. But your worldview clearly has this underlying mechanism at work. For example, you claim that “all religions are based on trusting in self to gain eternal life or the equivalent. To follow Christ means the opposite–denial of self.”
Of course, this is not true. There are many religions who’s underlying message is denial of self. Islam is one such. The word Islam literally means “submission [to God].” A Muslim is literally “one who submits [to God].” Buddhism is based on destruction of the ego, to eschew worldly attachments that bind us to Samsara, the neverending cycle of rebirth into suffering. Hindu’s have a tradition of becoming sanyasan wherein you give up all of your worldly possessions and attachments to find enlightenment. In fact, I’m having a difficult time thinking of a non-animistic religion that does not require denial of self to a degree.
But you see, I do understand what you are saying. I grew up in a Christian household. My father was a very devout Christian, more than I ever could have possibly imagined. We didn’t have a television when I was young because of the possible negative influence from secular media (Of which I still agree but for different reasons). He and I read the Bible together every night. We prayed together. My parents sent me to a Christian school. I went to a Christian university. I had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I prayed on my own with an intensity that would probably astound the average Christian. To qualify my upbringing under Christ as anything but authentic is, indeed, naive. I understand the language of Christianity. I understand what it means to have the Holy Spirit dwelt within me. I was a Christian by any definition.
Here’s a question for you. Why are there so many religions?
@ Jam – It’s certainly a waste of time if you are trying to figure out which theology is morally superior.
Sadly, Religion and Morality have very little to do with each other. Unless you mean moral depravity. I was simply saying dead people know much more about God than living people. As for those who ‘know’ what God wants, they should be careful… that way lies madness.
On an up note, it is encouraging that more and more people are leaving the church and going back to God….
Cool site
James M