Attempting to understand God – a personal view
“The slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things.” – Thomas Aquinas
Warning: Some may find the following paragraphs challenging or possibly disconcerting. Nevertheless, I do not intend to separate anyone from God or destroy their cherished beliefs. On the contrary, I hope my musings will help those who, like me, have doubts or questions arrive at a better understanding of what it means to “believe in God.” This project is my attempt to chronicle some of my thought process as I journeyed from agnosticism to tenuous belief.
Is there a God? If so, what is God? Who is God? Furthermore, how can I know whether there is or is not a God? These are questions people have asked for as long as there have been questions. As a person who questions things, yet still tries to keep faith, I have found there are many obstacles in the way of simply “believing in” God. I need to understand what is meant by “God,” not just blindly accept what I have read or been told about God. I have also found even in The Holy Bible there are conflicting concepts of God. To mention only two, is God the “Old Testament” God of vengeance and wrath who instructed his followers to annihilate their enemies? Or is God the “New Testament” God of love, who offered his own son as a sacrifice for humanity? Has he changed over time, or have we? If we have changed in our capacity or level of understanding, why are we are still as violent a species as we ever were? I believe it’s possible God could have changed his tune over the centuries, but what does that tell us about what he wants us to do? Which is it, are we to wipe out our enemies or be kind to them? I suppose in a way the answer to some of my questions is not apparent because I am a man of limited capacity – I can only understand so much. I can only keep so much in mind at one time while the information pertaining to God is virtually limitless. Maybe I should start with what I think God is not.
Part One: What God is Not
It seems to me God is not a little old man who lives in the sky and constantly checks to see whether we are breaking the rules or are being “naughty or nice.” I also believe if God is pre-existent and all-powerful, he does not really need us to re-enact certain rituals or bow and scrape to “worship” him. My logic is this: if God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, he also has perfect control over his ego, which means unlike most humans he does not need to have it stroked all the time in order to feel important. It also occurs to me what is commonly called “worship” in church is really fellowship or celebration. I think I can make a good case that worship is what should happen outside of church, when the time comes to “love our neighbors as we do ourselves.” In short, if there is a God, simply put, he just “is,” and all the songs and rituals in the world will not impress him. If anything, prayers, liturgy, hymns, songs, and sermons are for us, not to worship, but to guide and reassure us as we attempt to do good in the world.
I am also pretty sure God is not in the business of granting wishes like some sort of sky genie whom we need to please in order to get what we want or not get what we don’t want. It is written, “the rain falls on the just and the unjust.” But if God’s function is to hand out favors, then it follows some of us might in some way deserve them more than others. So, what innocent child deserves to die from leukemia or aids while some self-absorbed man deserves to be rich? Why would God “bless” him and not the child? Maybe the child’s parents don’t know how to pray the right way. Maybe the rich man made a deal with God to give away a substantial amount of money in return for his prosperity. Clearly God is something other than the anthropomorphic wish-granter many people believe in. Somehow, I think his raison d’être has nothing to do with being a policeman, an object of adoration, a magician, or a supernatural business partner.
What does God expect humans to do in order to please him? I don’t believe he expects us to go on crusades, to make “converts” at sword-point or by using deprivation and torture, to bomb abortion clinics, or to strap bombs to ourselves and then detonate them in crowded public places. Whatever justification can be offered for these kinds of actions, I refuse to believe God requires them as a condition of acceptance or salvation. If there is a God, and the Genesis stories have any truth, he is a God of creation, not destruction. It seems to me persons who believe they must coerce or condemn others for the sake of their religion must also believe some “believers” are better than others. Yet, the Bible indicates “there is none righteous, no not one” and clearly “all have sinned.” I don’t believe God wants us to set-up a hierarchy of belief systems, especially the kind that says some can act as judge, jury, and executioner over others. In short, all the information I have received about the bigoted, cruel, destructive, vengeful actions of many so-called believers has been a monstrous obstacle to my understanding of God. I can only conclude either their understanding is faulty or mine is.
I am trying to understand God in light of the story of creation, which has always seemed to me more of an allegory than a literal step-by-step account. I can believe the subtext – some kind of God could have made everything – and what was made was “good,” in the sense that the universe was somehow complete, self-sufficient, and able to function properly. In other words, creation as I understand it displays the characteristics of an orderly system, in which the parts contribute in some way to the whole. This observation by itself is not necessarily proof of the existence of God, yet the universe works, and if God started it all, it is indeed “good” at least in this sense. I have seen and learned too much of human behavior to believe we humans are innately good in a moral sense, and clearly the statement “it was good” can’t have anything to do with the moral judgment of rocks and roses, or polar bears and pythons. I may believe the universe was made well, but since I have limited knowledge of this universe and for all I know there may be billions of other universes, I don’t have much of a standard for comparison.
Perhaps God is the purveyor of our concepts of right and wrong, maybe more of a Dutch uncle than a rich uncle. In the story of the Garden of Eden, he forbade one specific behavior, all the while knowing his “creation” was made “in his image,” in the likeness of a being having both independent volition and inquisitiveness. After the man and woman disobeyed God, they were exiled from the garden and condemned to a life of hard labor. I have thought about this story for a long time, and to me it makes sense at least from one angle. It seems to me God was perhaps just as disappointed Adam and Eve failed to take responsibility for their actions than that they had disobeyed his orders. Life might have turned out differently had the couple simply told the truth. An alternative version of the story might run as follows:
And after their eyes were opened, they knew they were naked, but their nakedness did not trouble them because they realized all the other creatures in the garden were naked as well. When they heard the Lord walking in the garden, Eve whispered to Adam, “you might as well tell Him, because He already knows.”
Soon they heard the Lord God call out, “Where are you, Adam?”
Adam said, “I am here, Lord, and I have something to tell you.”
“What is it Adam? You look like you have something serious on your mind.”
“I do Lord, and I don’t know how to say it, because I am afraid you will be angry with us.”
“Why, what have you done?” God replied with patience.
“We think it’s best to confess…we ate some fruit from the tree you told us not to touch. We could blame each other, or the serpent who enticed us, but we want you to know we accept full responsibility for what we have done. All we can say is we were too curious about the knowledge that came with the fruit to resist trying it. We are sorry we disobeyed you.”
“Oh, Adam…Oh, Eve…I am very disappointed you failed to keep my commandment. But I am pleased you have taken responsibility for your actions. I expected you to come sneaking up to me dressed in fig leaves, and to make excuses for your decision, but you have surprised me. You are indeed now more like gods, just as the serpent told you.”
“What will become of us?” asked Eve.
“Since you have eaten the forbidden fruit, you shall be banished from the garden, but since you have told the truth about it, you are well on your way to fulfilling your destiny – I did not expect your kind to achieve this kind of realization for many millennia. See that you teach your children to take responsibility for their choices as well, and humans will prosper. Your kind will still have a difficult life. Many challenges lie ahead, but since you have shown curiosity, independent thought, and the wisdom to accept the consequences of your own actions, you will acquire the strength to surmount them. One day your kind will have an honored place in the universe.”
————————————
This version of the story is of course very different from the account in Genesis, and borders, no doubt, on blasphemy, but I will not apologize for it. It causes me to think more deeply about the meaning of the story and I hope others will not be too offended.
If there is a God, and humankind was made in his image, then it follows either we have more power than we are willing to accept, or than God was willing to let us have. Jesus told his followers faith like a “mustard seed” would enable them to move mountains. Indeed, we can now move mountains, build islands, reclaim lowlands, bridge great chasms and undertake many other marvelous tasks, when we recognize we have the intelligence, curiosity, and strength of will to do so. It seems to me many religions treat man as if he were weak and condemned to be subservient, always dependent upon and in many cases groveling before an almighty God. What happened to being made in the “image of God?” I understand the part about “fallen” humanity, all of us failing to make the grade, as it were. Yet, what kind of God would plan to create a dysfunctional creature, much less encourage the creature to remain dysfunctional and forever dependent? I have labored most of my life under the terrible guilt of being less than I could be, having been a disappointment to others and to the Almighty, being somehow intrinsically unworthy of any kind of consideration from God. Is there nothing in human nature we could find empowering – not our capacity to learn and grow, not our curiosity, not our spirit of adventure, not even our ability to contemplate and plan for the future? If there is a God, what’s wrong with wanting to be more like Him in every way? Why should Adam have apologized for eating the fruit? What about a few questions for God? “If you are all-knowing, and planned to test me in this way, then why did you make me so curious? Were you setting me up to fail? Was this even a fair test? You created me to desire knowledge of all kinds, and then forbade me to reach out for it – why? How can I ever become all I could be if I cannot exercise my innate curiosity?”
All of this must sound like Jacob wrestling with God. Well, I too am wrestling with what God is and what He wants from me. I can’t continue believing in God if I can’t question my beliefs – if I can’t question God, so to speak. I hope to come out on the other end of my explorations with a better understanding of God or at least an understanding that if there is a God, He or She is beyond my understanding. If God turns out to be simply beyond my understanding, the best I can do is to follow the example of Jesus and “do unto others” to the best of my ability, while exercising as much faith, hope, and love as I can. However, I suspect if I can reach a better understanding of God, maybe others can benefit from following me through the thickets and briars of my imagination. Perhaps they too can find a more understandable God at the end of my trail.
Part Two: The Role of “Faith”
Speaking of faith, one of my favorite passages from the Bible includes the phrase, “for we are saved by grace through faith.” Like Martin Luther, I think this passage is somehow pivotal to our understanding of God. I also think it’s crucial to our understanding of the role of faith in our lives. The reality is many parts of our lives depend upon faith – or at least a certain amount of trust – that most of the time the bridges we drive and walk across won’t simply collapse, or the food we eat in restaurants won’t make us sick, or if we work, we will be paid, and so on. Yet, we have no absolute assurance about these kinds of things. Bridges can and do collapse, occasionally we get food poisoning, and sometimes the check is not in the mail. Even an atheist, who believes solely in reason as the highest achievement of the human mind, needs to admit even in science there is an element of faith that each practitioner is doing his or her level best to report observations and conclusions with integrity. There is even an element of faith that each measuring device is measuring what it’s supposed to measure. Fortunately, in science there are ways to cross-check results, to measure things in various ways, to verify observations and claims, to test hypotheses and speculations, in short to detect errors and outright attempts to falsify data. From time-to-time a hoax is uncovered, or an error is corrected, and with this knowledge a theory can be improved, and future work can proceed with more confidence. Without the ability to place faith in, or in other words trust, what colleagues and predecessors have discovered, and especially the methods by which they have discovered it, there can be no real “progress” in science. The so-called “scientific method” has withstood the test of time because scientists have taken it seriously, as practically speaking an article of faith, so truths can be revealed, and falsehoods cannot in the long run be a part of scientific reasoning. Even though Aristotle was wrong on many points, for centuries his methods and reasoning were regarded as being so trustworthy that new data and observations had to find a lot of corroboration before the scientific community would agree to revise his theories. Such is the nature of faith in science.
Even in science it can be noted often faith is small at the beginning, such as the kind of faith we might have found at the beginning of the Copernican theory. Not many scientists were willing to trust the new paradigm and not many understood the new calculations, but as time went on and additional data confirmed the hypothesis, faith in the methods and observations of Copernicus grew. Even though his theory has been modified using better data and more refined equations, it remains fundamental to science. Faith in the basic principles applied by Copernicus and Newton and those who have followed in their footsteps remains high. This is not to say the paradigm cannot shift again. New or more accurate observations or new ways of understanding the process of observation itself can change a paradigm, again requiring a little faith in the beginning which can grow as more observations confirm new theories. I’m sure Newton and Copernicus would have approved young Einstein’s search for the truth. His relativity theories build upon the foundational work of many scientists, all of which did their best to report accurate data and act in accordance with the scientific method. Where would Einstein have been if he could not have trusted his colleagues and their observations?
Some scientists might object to my rather indiscriminate use of the words, “faith” and “trust.” After all, a word like “faith” tends to connect more with religious beliefs, however faith and trust generally can be taken to be synonymous, and I choose not to become too involved with semantics at this point in my journey. It may be enough to state both science and religion rely in some way on our ability to trust the information we have received has been offered without intent to deceive, in accordance with the principle that we need some truth to search for more truth. Neither science nor religion can claim anything solid without the ability to trust both the information at hand and the work of practitioners in the field. At this point, I need to add that faith or trust isn’t something a person can either “have” or not have. Trust is earned. Faith must be exercised. Both are often tested. The ability to trust or exercise faith requires doubt, questioning, and above all commitment to learning more.
All of this is not to say a belief in God is simply a matter of answering the question, “Who do you trust?” It is also not to say a belief in God depends mainly on historical documentation or verifiable observations of God in action, so to speak. Considering all my questions and doubts, I think a belief in God does not operate the same way as the confirmation of a scientific theory. My comments on faith and trust above serve to point out both science and religion contain some element of faith, but at this point I am not ready to say what kind or how much. The best I can say now is it seems to me faith in God is not the same as faith in a set of observations or in the work of a dedicated colleague or a community of practitioners. These kinds of faith may share some similarities, as outlined above, but in the end, I can’t test God like a scientific hypothesis, just as I can’t have absolute assurance science will find all the answers to “life, the universe, and everything,” as Douglas Adams put it. Science, by definition, is an ongoing search for the truth. Science requires constant skepticism and an endless process of verification and re-verification. On the other hand, by most definitions, God either exists or doesn’t exist.[1] It’s not as if God is a myth that can be “confirmed” or “busted.” If God exists, He or She must have an existence independent from our belief or disbelief. Just because an aggrieved parent might say to a prodigal son, “you are dead to me,” does not mean the son has actually died or no longer exists. This kind of reasoning merely suggests anyone can deny their belief in anything, but their denial cannot change reality, nor can it necessarily change what others believe. I am referring to the God of the universe after all, and it seems to me my belief in God and the existence of God are not the same thing. God’s existence does not depend on my belief. My question is: does my belief somehow depend on God’s existence?
[1] There is another possibility: A quantum God, one who could be said to exist and not exist at the same time. Perhaps this God is referenced whenever scripture says we need to “call upon” the Lord. Could God be said to exist when called upon or when implicitly called upon? We could say this kind of God doesn’t not exist and would appear inactive to those who are skeptical or indifferent to His or Her presence. Let’s face it, the evidence many people see from day-to-day does not suggest an active God. Some people believe there is a God who created the universe and then stepped back to watch His machine run – with only minimal adjustment from time to time. Others believe in a God who is always present and active. What if both these concepts are right? What if the only way to see is to believe?
I don’t think we can call God into existence by believing in Him. I don’t think God is like “Tinker Bell” in the Peter Pan stories, Nietzsche notwithstanding. He or She will not fade out of existence if no one believes anymore. Yet, if God really called me into existence, that is, set up the universe to be a home for life whenever conditions are right, and set up a self-correcting system in which life can adapt and change according to its environment, and I am here through an improbable chain of events leading to my being who I am, in a way my belief in God does depend on God’s existence. Perhaps something is afoot, whether mankind was created from dust, or something in that dust in time evolved into mankind. Both events seem highly improbable, to say the least. Is the fact that I am contemplating God “proof” of God’s existence? No. But I think the search for God is in some way connected to the search for order and meaning in the universe. Carl Sagan thought “the cosmos” is all there is. But is it?
Part Three: “Life, the Universe, and God”
“What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him but little lower than God, and crownest him with glory and honor. Thou makest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet.” These words, from Psalm 8, verses 4-6, hint at mankind’s relationship to God. I want to believe what this passage says, but I have some questions first. For instance, even if this is so, what is the purpose of life? Is life a simply one event after another, with no meaning and no ultimate purpose, or is there something other than random interactions of particles behind it all? If the cosmos is all there is, as Sagan proposed, what about God? Is God the cosmos? If God is simply the total of all indeterminate interactions in the universe, in other words, if God is literally “all there is,” what does this notion tell us about what to do with our lives? My immediate answer is, not very much. Some people view God as “the life force” or simply “in all and through all.” These ideas may have some truth, yet if “God” is simply the “ether,” what can we honestly believe about Him or Her? What does this God have to do with belief or unbelief?
The proponents of “intelligent design” have one important notion: if an omniscient creator were the “author” or “composer” of the universe, all of creation would somehow bear His imprint, just as the body of work by a great composer shows a certain style or individuality. Every Beethoven symphony has certain identifying characteristics embedded within it. These offer subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, hints it was composed by Beethoven and not Mozart or Bach. Perhaps we should expect the universe to display this kind of pattern on a larger scale. Why should we be surprised humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA or all life on earth displays a high degree of genetic similarity? The intelligent design argument is in a sense corroborated by modern science, but this does not mean the universe must have a divine creator. Nevertheless, it seems to me the pattern of similarities in nature is fundamental and pervasive.
For example, for a long time I have thought about the “law of inverse squares.” This “law” indicates elemental forces, such as gravity and magnetism, decrease in strength according to the square of the distance between planets or particles. In addition, sound and light decrease in intensity according to the square of the distance between the observer and the source. If I move twice as far away, the intensity of light or sound is one-fourth what it was, and so on. This principle affects far too many phenomena not to be considered part of the fabric, structure, or design of the universe. While I realize the existence of physical “laws” alone does not “prove” the existence of God, just as the existence of certain compositional techniques does not prove the existence of Beethoven, nevertheless these embedded rational principles, like those in Newton’s Laws, Kepler’s Laws, Ohm’s Law, Boyle’s Law, and Maxwell’s Equations, to name a few, all seem to interconnect in ways resembling some sort of plan. Again, I realize some would argue physical interactions are simply what they need to be to make the system work, but I can imagine the universe would be a different place if it had inconsistent or unrelated laws. To quote Einstein, “God does not play dice with the universe.” If there is a God, I think we can reasonably expect the structure of the universe to contain a certain amount of consistency, if not order, and even seemingly indeterminate events might produce discernable patterns and result in universal laws.
Mozart once experimented with “random” music – combinations of tones assembled by way of multiple rolls of the dice. Each roll of the dice would add one more passage of music to the “composition.” But some would call this process a trick, because Mozart had already composed many short passages conceived to be incomplete on their own, but able to interconnect in any order indicated by the dice and still make a pleasing piece of music. Mozart had created a structure that could not fail to be orderly or at least conform to accepted ideas of musical composition, even though it contained an element of indeterminacy. This process to me sounds suspiciously like DNA. I understand only four basic protein molecules form the basis of these complex molecular chains. Could it be the microstructure of the universe is not entirely “indeterminate” as quantum physics and chaos theory indicate? Could the God of the universe possibly have given thought to how the small pieces could fit together with or without His or Her continual input or guidance? Is such a universe truly “random,” or is there a possibility a quantum nudge here or there could change, well, everything?
My wanderings have reinforced the impossibility of empirically proving the existence of God. “We see through a glass darkly,” as the Apostle Paul wrote, and all we get are tantalizing glimpses of nature. Further we find logic alone cannot ever successfully argue for or against the existence of God. What about morality and ethics? What are we to do? What am I to do? Clearly, an abstract God of the cosmos, who simply built the train set and then stepped back to watch the trains run around the track, may not have much to do with how we live from day to day, and may not be interested in our fears, hopes, or dreams, or indeed any other aspects of our “spirit.” What difference would our choices make to such a God?
Unless…unless God configured the microstructure of the universe to make sure our choices mattered. It seems to me if there is a God, everything would ultimately be a part of the puzzle, and I mean everything, not only the creation story, the Bible, the Catholic Church, and a long line of prophets and sages, but the “big bang” theory, “The Origin of the Species,” quantum physics, and all of modern science. To reject one piece of information from any source would be to reject a part of the truth. If I am to believe in God, I must be able to consider it all, with all my questions and doubts. My God must be big enough to encompass it all. Buckminster Fuller once proposed, “the greatest truth is the most comprehensive;” therefore the whole truth must comprehend all possible knowledge. I am not interested in any non-comprehensive concept of God. It seems to me God either pervades all we know, or He doesn’t. And if he doesn’t, he need not exist. Our interest in doing the right thing, whether caused by a “selfish gene” or some built-in desire to seek goodness, truth, and beauty, might have something to do with the way the smallest particles of the universe are organized. Did we evolve into sentience or were we created that way? Perhaps it doesn’t matter, because it might just be the nature of nature, indeed the nature of God, to set the universe up so both notions ultimately point back to each other, just as east and west on a sphere ultimately meet again. The truth may be many of us are arguing with each other about God without understanding we are standing on the same ground, and one atom of that ground just might contain all we ever need to know about God.
Part Four: Faith and Choice
I have used the words faith and trust as if they were synonymous. I still think in a certain sense they are, but I also alluded to the fact that “faith” in the methods of science and “faith” in God are fundamentally different. I can trust, or “place faith in,” the methods of science because over time and with a great deal of peer review, these procedures have shown themselves to be reliable, or in other words, trustworthy. There is indeed a body of empirical evidence supporting scientific theories. Like Thomas, the doubter, we can place faith in science because we have seen the results and have been able to test the work of many contributors. However, there is no body of experimental, measurable, repeatable evidence that has tested or can ever test the existence of God. God cannot be tested in a laboratory or directly measured in the field. Other than the claim of some sort of overarching pattern in natural phenomena or natural laws, which I admitted are not “proof” in the scientific sense, we are left with only two basic areas of evidence for God. The first is our own personal experience, and the second is the written accounts of those who have claimed to have experienced some sort of revelation or miracle, in other words those who have claimed to observe God in some way. It’s difficult to argue for or against someone’s personal experience, and this area is certainly a strong part of what many call “faith.” However, there can be problems with believing ancient texts, just as there can be problems with understanding the work of scientists. For instance, while it might be a “leap of faith” to believe an ancient writer we have never met and who certainly might have had his words altered over time, it’s also a leap of faith to believe a scientist we have never met and whose work is at least somewhat obscure to us. This observation, again, shows the sense in which a certain amount of faith applies to both science and religion. Even so, I think faith in God has a different character than trust in empirical observations.
Science is something we can do to help us understand the universe. But we can’t really find out about God without looking within ourselves. We can ask a scientist, “how, where, when, how much, under what conditions?” and so on, but we can’t ask science, “why?” The answer to this question is related to who we are and what we choose to do, not the nature of the physical world. The basis of who we are now returns to the idea of responsibility for our choices. In an indeterminate universe, if we are to accept this notion, perhaps it matters some creatures can exercise choice rather than merely act upon instinct or behavioral conditioning. As far as I can understand it, mankind is the only species that can use sophisticated linguistic ability, plan for the future, learn from the past, and reflect on life in the present. In addition, there is something to be said for the effect of mankind’s collective choices upon the earth itself. Our choices have had and continue to have a profound impact upon the planet’s natural resources and a great many other life forms, not to mention each other.
Perhaps what we do with what we are can help us understand the nature of “God” in us. If we are made “in the image of God,” the idea that we have choices to make, and certainly the choice of whether to take responsibility for those choices, is part of our nature. Perhaps the most “human” among us are those who freely make the most difficult personal choices and own up to their personal responsibility for making those choices. To live without a sense of responsibility, or a certain amount of guilt, seems to me like making the choice to live like an animal, free from both the constraints and the potentialities of being human. If the “kingdom of God is within you,” as Jesus said, that kingdom will be reflected in many day-to-day choices, and these choices indicate the nature and direction of a person’s faith.
It seems to me the personal choices of so-called intelligent beings are perhaps the only countervailing force in a universe that relentlessly obeys natural laws on its way to we know not where. For example, we are told one day the earth may be hit by a large enough asteroid or comet to wipe out all life forms bigger than a breadbox. We have a choice, as the only inhabitants of this world who can make one, to do something to head off this catastrophe, or simply let all of humanity and most of our fellow creatures die. Ironically, if this happens and a few humans somehow manage to escape to another world, allowing our kind to survive another 65 million years or so, we might then have some first-hand experience with our own evolution. At present, such long-term experiments are beyond our ken. The real tragedy of a cataclysmic asteroid strike might be that the only being in history with the potential to avert such a disaster chose not to because too many denied the possibility scientists might be right. Maybe “Armageddon” is not so much a literal battle between the forces of good and evil, but an ongoing battle between who we are now and who we could be if we realized our potential as a species.
If our choices define us, what can I conclude about God? While my conclusions are tentative at best, maybe I can say with some confidence that our “comprehensive propensity,” as Buckminster Fuller put it, is a sign of God within us. Humans, in general, strive to understand things, sometimes at great personal cost. We also seek to exercise volition, even when our selfish choice is to limit the choices of others. In addition, we have the power to accept responsibility for what we say and do. In recent years this capacity has been in short supply, but nevertheless, it helps define us as sentient beings. To wrap up, whether we were created this way or evolved in this direction, we seem to have qualities far exceeding other creatures, so much so I am tempted to call them “spiritual” qualities. After all, a person does not choose to climb Mt. Everest, design the Golden Gate Bridge, compose the “German Requiem,” or paint the Sistine ceiling on a mere whim. These kinds of choices enlarge life for millions of others, and I am confident the organizing principle behind them is certainly not indeterminate. In a universe made up of trillions of indeterminate events, I think it’s somehow important to balance the scales with a certain number of determinate activities.
Aristotle defined happiness as related to the activity of the soul, in accordance with virtue. It seems to me these activities involve certain organizing principles. Mere random interactions don’t contemplate virtue or wonder if they have a soul, yet somehow the result of countless quantum events is a creature (and maybe a relatively few creatures on other worlds) able to contemplate its existence and wonder whether there is or isn’t a God. To me the activity within the human mind, and possibly other minds, is a kind of evidence there is more to the universe than science alone can measure. Shakespeare’s Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” While we cast about arguing for or against the Theory of Evolution, or the “Big Bang Theory,” there remains a stubborn pattern: humans are able to choose to argue or not argue, to make or break commitments, to love or not to love, to explore or not to explore, to be or not to be, and even to choose not to choose. I can’t believe humans are able to do these kinds of things purely by random happenstance. We are the only entity on earth able to exercise personal choice and take responsibility for it, which, I think, makes us god-like. Further, we are constantly making choices for everything around us: random molecules of iron are not likely to arrange themselves in the shape of horseshoes, and horses are not likely to wax patriotic and sign-up to join the cavalry. If there is a God, and what I know of His attributes is correct, by exercising our ability to choose we are trying to be like Him. Is this our goal? If so, we have far to go, but I think it’s a worthy goal. It seems to me either evolution is still in process or many in the world of religion have yet to realize what man really is and why God might be mindful of him. It occurs to me humans, with curiosity and decision-making capabilities, may in fact reflect the image of God only in so far as we are able to live up to our potential.
Part Five: Human Potential
Our potential as a species is wrapped up in our capacity not only to make choices but to assume responsibility for them. The Genesis stories indicate we were somehow to “take dominion” over life on this planet. Many so-called “believers” these days read this commandment as permission to be the dominant life form, to take control of all the rest. I read it in the sense that “dominion” implies an effort to both preserve autonomy and foster justice and equality. In other words, we are supposed to be the “caretakers” of the world, not just going around bending animals, plants, and natural resources to our will, but taking care the other inhabitants of this planet are not treated recklessly in our selfish attempts to take charge or make a profit. While it could be argued we are somehow “special” or “superior” by reason of the size of our brain, or the powers we are able to exercise over other species, it would be good to keep in mind a choice phrase from C.S. Lewis: “What we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.” As a general principle, we do not understand our own power any more than we understand what the word “dominion” really means. Native American philosophies are correct. It is a serious thing to choose to take the life of a buffalo, or any other animal, and a person should do this reverently, taking care to be thankful for the animal’s sacrifice for him, and taking care to use the parts of the animal wisely, so as not to waste that sacrifice. In the 19th century, so-called “civilized” men simply shot as many buffalo as possible from the roofs of passing trains. The former illustrates the meaning of dominion, while the latter is the very definition of domination, or exploitation. Yet, we humans are supposedly superior life forms. If we are so superior, where is the responsibility for these kinds of choices? Even now, numerous right-wing religionists refuse to admit any human responsibility for global climate change. Considering what I have said about dominion, what kind of God would support this point-of-view? It seems to me if I might be contributing in some small way to destroying the planet an all-powerful God entrusted to my care, the sensible thing to do would be to err on the side of caution, not live in denial because I don’t happen to “believe” what science is telling me. I guess the planet must not matter to some humans as long as they can get what they want – who cares about everyone else, who cares about the future? I am being an old curmudgeon, of course, but nevertheless the selfishness of such a position should be obvious.
If we were put here to make choices, it follows we need to make good choices, the kind of choices that in some way might make this world better for everyone. All our curiosity, accumulated learning, ability to reason, and power to make choices would be worthless if we did not step up to our responsibility as a species. If all of creation is a prelude to us, as some might have it, we need to be the species that exercises its abilities to benefit itself and others. Isn’t this one of the central messages of religion? “Do unto others,” as the master said, is not just a suggestion, but an instruction to help us clarify our direction in life. If there is a God, I believe He or She is interested in seeing us live up to our potential. And to me the teachings of the major world religions serve to help us understand the differences our choices can make and our need to take responsibility for making them. Religions offer a vast array of images intended to help us realize our potential. The point of the Tao, or Way, is to show us what is good, and what we should do about it, so our choices won’t get too far off-track, so we might become the kind of beings who might be regarded as truly “god-like.” If we want to live up to our potential, we need to become just as interested in goodness, truth, beauty, justice, mercy, and humility as we believe our God is. By the accounting of most religions, we all have far to go, but realizing what is at stake is a good place to start.
Part Six: Toward A Personal God
As someone who identifies as a Christian, I struggle with what to believe about other religions. Many well-intentioned Christians believe Christianity is the only true religion and only followers of Jesus will be “saved.” No matter what I’m supposed to believe, I can’t believe an all-knowing, all-loving God would exclude people based on mere geography. You see, I realize if I had been born to different parents in a different culture, I could very well identify as a Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jew, or Buddhist. The way a person is brought up has everything to do with what they believe and how they practice their beliefs.
My father is a strongly ethical man, someone about whom a colleague once remarked, “He would rather be staked out in a desert than produce an inferior product.” Yet, my dad has never claimed to be a Christian or even “religious.” He once told me he thought “Jesus spoke in riddles.” Another time he questioned what people who claimed to “have faith” might do when that faith failed them. Nevertheless, he tried to teach his children the importance of doing the right thing and treating other people with decency and respect. For a long time, it has been clear to me dad valued dedication to excellent work and getting along with others far above going to church. So, even though some people don’t profess a belief in God or practice a religion, is it still possible for them to be “saved” in some sense? Or is the whole idea of “salvation” merely “wish fulfillment,” as Freud thought?
Let’s put the question of salvation aside for the moment. In 1944, C.S. Lewis wrote a short book called, “The Abolition of Man,” in which he explored the role of morality in human affairs. As a part of that book he shared his research on moral principles, “Illustrations of the Tao.” Across time and human cultures there are striking similarities in teachings regarding beneficence, duties to parents and children, justice, honesty, mercy, magnanimity, and so on. It seems humans pretty much agree it is better to treat others the way we would want to be treated than just do whatever we want. To many who practice a religion, the source of these precepts at least appears to be God. Why else would these ideals be so universal? Whether or not a God exists, moral guidelines are clear and pervasive – it is generally considered a bad idea to lie, cheat, steal, or murder if one desires a safe and orderly society. Further, religion has had a major role in instilling moral and ethical values. If there is a God, it seems to me one way He or She could exert a positive influence on “life, the universe, and everything” is through universal moral principles.
However, while the existence of “The Way” might argue for some form of divinity, it does not prove there is a God. The Tao simply underscores the importance of sentient beings making wise decisions in their interactions with each other – assuming they want to live in a functioning society rather than a barbaric state of anarchy. The Tao then presents a prudent set of choices. To seek justice, mercy, and compassion, or not. To aim for unity or discord. To build or destroy human relationships and civilization along with them. It seems to me a good God would want His or Her children to make good choices, so even if such a God is not behind the Tao, it might be helpful for us to act as if there is. Religion can thus provide motivation and encouragement to do the difficult but right thing rather than the easy but selfish thing. Without moral guidance of some kind, human life would be as Hobbes warned, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
What is “salvation?” Most Christians would challenge me on this, saying it’s not what is, but who is our salvation? Nevertheless, there are many religions in the world, all teaching substantially the same core values. True, there are extremists to be found, those who advocate oppressing or killing people who practice other religions or no religion, but extremists seem to have one thing in common. They have found ways to explain away the core values of their religion to justify doing whatever they want in the name of their “God.” This is a good jumping off point to consider the so-called need to proselytize or coerce everyone to join a designated religion in order to be “saved.” Wars have been fought in the name of, and countless lives have been sacrificed to “the god of true religion.” In my mind, this god has done more damage than all the non-believers who ever lived. He has insisted that inquisitions, crusades, and jihad are The Way, rather than the guiding principles passed down through centuries of wisdom literature.
Now, the Bible says, “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Further, most Christians believe one must call on the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ to be saved. But, to accept this belief, must we also believe millions of people were left out until humans became able to visit distant cultures and communicate by telegraph, radio, and television? For thousands of years, “as you go into all the world” literally meant the world reachable on foot or around the Mediterranean Sea. And, it is not clear from the wording of the Bible whether we must call on Jesus by that exact name. As Lewis pointed out, it might be possible for some people to know God by another name. What if a person calls upon Allah in spirit and truth? What if their God is known as Gitche Manitou, Odin, Krishna, or Ra? I’m not saying Jesus is just another manifestation of one of these Gods, but that the way we understand God has a lot to do with our ability to follow Him or Her. If one understands God as a jealous, merciless, vindictive conqueror, his or her relationship to God will be much different from a person who understands God as a loving, merciful, compassionate savior. So, what kind of God are we calling upon and what difference does it make?
“I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” – John 10:16
There is a scene in C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle,” in which Aslan (the Lion who created Narnia and is transparently analogous to Jesus in our world) and the Kings and Queens of Narnia arrive in the stable to meet the protagonists. Not long after, on their way into the new Narnia, our heroes meet a young Calormene who had worshipped another God, Tash, “the Inexorable,” for his whole life. He told his story to the Kings and Queens of Narnia. Here is an excerpt:
“Then I fell at his [Aslan’s] feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc [ruler] of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, though knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me, thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.” *
Lewis’ portrait of God gives me hope. Perhaps it is more important what we believe and how we act on it than what we name our God. “A rose by any other name,” the Bard wrote. A long time ago my father and I drove past a little house by the side of the road with a crudely-painted plywood sign, “Handmade Knifes for Sale.” I remarked that the guy obviously didn’t know the plural of knife, knives. My dad replied, “don’t be too quick to judge. He may not be able to spell knives, but I’ll bet he sure knows how to make them.” Maybe all names will be sorted out in due time, and what matters most is what these names mean to those who use them.
If a person uses the word, “God,” to mean a cruel, egotistical, judgmental, vengeful being who insists His followers worship Him by crushing others, perhaps this will turn out to be the God they ultimately deserve and will one day meet. This God will be the God they chose by their words and deeds. There may be no salvation for those who believe in such a God. They may end up in a prison they built brick-by-brick as they judged, shunned, cursed, and condemned others – those “fools” who would not worship their God their way, or had the audacity to choose not to live exactly like them. To be sure, their God has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, if a person uses the word, “God,” to mean a virtuous, generous, forgiving being who wants them to act the same way towards others, perhaps they will meet Jesus, also known as the God they worshipped in spirit and in truth by another name. Doing justice, loving mercy, and practicing humility would be “worship” to such a God. Choosing “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” would identify this person as a son or daughter of this God. For this person, salvation would come as they became one with their God, an incorruptible spirit, a part of the everlasting good.
Begun 2008, revised 2019.
* I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. [John 10:16]
Part Seven: What I Believe
First, a little honesty. I don’t know for certain that God exists. I don’t know for certain that God doesn’t exist. I don’t know for certain whether God is male or female or has all the best attributes of both. I don’t know for certain whether God is The Holy Trinity (supposedly, one God) or the multiple gods of other traditions. I don’t know for certain that believing in the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha will bring me to heaven or paradise or nirvana. I don’t know for certain if there is more to come or this life is all there is. I hope there is a God and that he or she is benevolent. I hope I might one day dwell in a little shack on the outskirts of heaven, but I don’t know any of this for certain. I believe I must admit my uncertainty because I believe in a God of truth.
I believe that simply believing in God or Jesus or the words of a prophet does no good without positive actions. The gospel of Luke reminds us of Jesus’ words, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” Saying the “right” words and performing the “right” rituals does not mean one is going to heaven or is necessarily virtuous. Perhaps the great sin is believing we have all the answers, that our beliefs are more valid than the beliefs of others, that we are holy, while they are not. Some believe they know better than everyone else, including God. This kind of thinking could be what some call, “original sin.” After all, Adam and Eve were convinced they knew better. Later, Micah wrote that God requires people to “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” None of that has anything to do with declaring religious superiority or trying to force others to believe as we do. Therefore, I believe God wants us to be humble. I further believe we should be careful when we claim to know God’s intentions.
I believe in a God of justice and mercy, the source of hope and love. I can have faith in such a God, even if that God turns out to be “the cosmos,” as Carl Sagan put it. I can’t have faith in a God who demands that I love him, while threatening that I will receive eternal damnation and torment if I don’t. It seems to me we shouldn’t believe anything just because we have a gun to our heads. If God is just and merciful, it strikes me that he will not hold creatures who are infinitely beneath him to divine standards. This would be like humans expecting worms to know the ways of man and follow them unerringly. Simply put, we, and the worms, lack the competence. So, I believe in a God of forgiveness.
We struggle with suffering, pain, and ever-present evil. Often, we must choose the lesser of two evils because there is no perfect alternative. Epicurus wrote, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” While I do not believe God is malevolent, it seems we must choose between right and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and evil – to the best of our ability. Cain chose to kill rather than change his ways. We can follow the light or reject it. But because we are temporal creatures, the ultimate results of our choices often elude us. Sometimes all we can say for ourselves is, “it seemed like a good idea at the time.” Even so, I believe God expects us to make choices and learn from our mistakes.
Like all of us, I have chosen wrong while thinking it was right. I have been misled by words that sounded true but were not. I have therefore done evil in the name of good. Hindsight shows all of us how we could have made better decisions. We could have been wise instead of foolish, but we learned too late. We can do our best and still be wrong, but does that make us vile sinners or just human? All I can say is that I am fallible. It follows that I believe in a God of second chances.
If God is just and merciful, I believe he will take our weakness and ignorance into account. I believe a loving God would not be eager to punish his creation. Yet, we punish ourselves and each other. We judge and condemn others even though we were told not to. We persist in bad choices, doubling down when we should walk away or make amends. It has been said, we reap what we sow. In other words, making life on Earth more hellish, either by our action or inaction, creates the suffering and evil many of us blame on God. I believe it is a mistake, perhaps a sin, when we fail to make life on Earth as good as possible for as many as possible. If we believe in heaven, why wait for paradise to be handed to us? Why not begin to build it now? I believe God wants us to use our abilities to help one another, not make excuses about why we can’t, or why other people don’t “deserve” our help.
Some say they believe in God, but their belief doesn’t seem to change their behavior. This kind of hypocrisy used to bother me. Yet, I suppose what concerns me most is that many have not thought about what they truly believe. It seems to me unexamined beliefs are practically worthless. That’s one reason I’m writing this essay. My faith may be smaller than a mustard seed, but at least I want to understand it more completely. I also hope I might help others take a hard look at their beliefs. Yet, it’s not up to me to convince anyone to believe as I do. None of us has any right to compel others to accept our beliefs. I can only challenge others to understand that each of us is responsible for our own beliefs. I believe God gave us that responsibility.
I wonder if all the vast information in the universe might persist long after the stars go out. It’s possible our existence is somehow woven into the fabric of space and time. Improbable things are nevertheless true. Niels Bohr wrote, “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” Maybe trillions of minds across billions of galaxies are part of the organizing principle of the cosmos. Perhaps our thoughts and actions make more of a difference than we know. I believe we are important to God – dare I say, loved by God. Further, I believe we may be agents of a power beyond our understanding. Therefore, I believe we are expected to take care of this world and take care of each other. I believe God put us here to learn about and possibly become one with his infinite, interconnected, ineffable creation. But I truly don’t know anything for certain. I’m just an old man trying to understand my place on a little blue marble in a cozy little star system on the outskirts of one galaxy. Yet, I believe in a God of infinite possibilities. And I believe God will help my unbelief.
July 2022
MurrayWorks 