42bound.com

On the Existence of Love and God

BLB on 16 Jun 2007

evolution and science and creationism and rationality and evidence and proof and belief and God and Atheism and Agnostic and love and Existence of God and Love | Comments (22)

22 Responses to “On the Existence of Love and God”

1. mcrom on 16 Jun 2007 at 10:41 pm #

   BLB,

   This is how I KNOW that I love you:

   1) My life is more enjoyable because of these interactions,– interactions that I honestly believe I wouldn’t have without you.
   2) Because despite your wildest passionate arguments, you still want every conversation to end with a joke about dirty underwear or Bob’s Big Boy. This helps me keep conversations simply that– conversations, and not little battles for philosophical points.
   3) Because you and I are very different, and yet there is something intangible that connects me forever to you, something I can’t explain. I could call it “Blue Nirvana”, or a spiritual bond. Regardless, it is something that I recognize as unique to my relationship with you.

   These things make me conclude that Love, in its infinite sense, connects us.

   I didn’t try to prove it, or examine it, I only explained it as far as I have experienced it. That is also how I attempt to describe God, and explain my encounters with God. There are some things in the Universe that we can understand, examine, and explain; and other things which we only observe without being able to examine them or fully comprehend or grasp them.

   I simply can not get past the fact that there is some “force” in my life that encourages me, convicts me, enlightens me, and draws me closer to it. I also can not get past the fact that Christianity continues to provide the most cohesive framework for me to understand God, the Universe, and Everything (versus the number 42, for example). At the core of my fundamental belief in God is the problem of Evil. Science (or Reason, or Logic) simply does not provide a meaningful explanation for the problem of Evil. Science often says that there is no problem, evil is simply our perception of a natural process. It is just a side-effect of competition or survival or natural to our species, therefore we shouldn’t make such a big deal out of it, just dish out punishments as another tool in the process of survival of the fittest. This does not explain why evil exists, NOR does it explain how to deal with evil redemptively.

   Nevertheless, science/logic/reason is a helpful and necessary human capacity that has to be used liberally in one’s journey of faith. Contrary to your statement below, I believe that faith strengthens reason beyond what it is capable of alone, just as reason strengthens faith. Just as faith without works is dead, so is faith without reason. Faith is not blind unless it stands alone (sorry to step on some Reformed toes here, going against “Faith Alone…”). But Reason alone is equally blind. Reason alone leaves one with a purely materialistic view of the world, as if only that which is physical and observable is true. The Materialist view of the world does not answer ultimate questions of justice, peace, love, and hate, it simple accepts them as human constructs and does not provide compassionate remedies.

   Overall, I think we agree on ALOT, but it’s the conclusions we come to that make us very different.

   1) We agree that we cannot prove the existence of God
   a) For you that means that belief in God is not necessary and perhaps even somewhat illogical.
   b) For me that means that God interacts with humanity on a different level which defies logical explanation. Let’s say that we only knew of the existence of the numbers 2 and 3. We discover addition and realize that there is also 4 and 5. Then we discover multiplication and realize that there are numbers up to 25. Just because 25 is the limit of our abilities doesn’t necessitate that 26 and beyond don’t exist at all. It also doesn’t necessitate that letters can’t bring meaning to numbers as well (as in algebra). Just because science attempts to explain everything that is observable, doesn’t necessitate that science explains everything.

   2) We agree that Love cannot be proven, but can be observed.
   a) for you that means that all intangible things can be explained by their effect on humanity, making them only true and significant IF they have physical implications.
   b) for me, Love can not be proven because it is part of the nature of God, which is beyond our human rational understanding. We see it and recognize it’s influence, but many chose to ignore it or lessen its influence in their lives, while others choose to live and die by it and try to encourage its influence in their lives.

   (Now, for my abrupt ending because I just realized that I’ve blabbed on for too long:) In the end, I believe this discussion is best served by asking “What is love and what do we do with it?”

2. RZem on 16 Jun 2007 at 10:49 pm #

   Wow, mcrom and BLB, such beautiful, reflection-provoking pieces! Thank you for including me in the list of recipients. I relish these types of conversations even if I am awed and humbled by the depth of your thinking and lucidity of expression. Conversations about matters of consequence such as these are nurture for our depths and community, as long as we carry it lightly, as Mcrom suggests. You both make great points . . . and then we also know that what is True lies beyond what words can describe. Yet, we try words anyway – maybe in celebration of it all.

3. Jphil on 16 Jun 2007 at 11:09 pm #

   BLB,

   Firstly, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the subject. As I stated before, I feel like you have hinted at your specific beliefs and talked about how you are in a different place. But I personally haven’t heard exactly where you are at. I am glad that you are being vulnerable. I also want to say that I didn’t like the dynamic that started to occur at the party. I could tell that you felt defensive and emotive and, as you stated “being the only agnostic” in the room.

   I think it is good that you are throwing these ideas our way, knowing that they probably won’t meet smiles and nods. It is risky and it shows trust in your friends. When you don’t share, I feel like you don’t trust me.

   That said, I do have to confess that I believe you are selling us short. I get the sense from your explanation that you think Christians, at some point, short circuit, difficult and flexible thinking in the name of faith. This is upseting a bit because I am wrestling with questions about the exclusivity of our faith even now. Your friends, while they may land in the Christian camp, are not fundamentalists that make your skin crawl. We love thinking deeply. And we, like you, are not able to look at faith with totally objective lenses. If you are honest, your objectivity is tainted by your negative experiences in the front row of chapel and in other places. While a strict interpretation of scripture does imply all others are wrong and we are right, I like you, choose not to judge. And that does not make me not a Christian, inspired by the life of Christ.

   As for your explanation of how love is rational. I too think it is. I don’t think it is empirical, proven as you want the existance of God to be though. I know that you admit this. But it is still odd for me to see you accept love as rational and true. But for God you demand a higher standard. Rational does not work for you…only empirical proof. I think faith is more like looking up into the sky and observing the sun peeking through the clouds, the birds, and thinking….rationally….”Man, this is amazing. This is more than just chance.” Its less like your story of impending fire in the building. Even in your choosing of that story to characterize Christianity, you are framing a fear driven, fire and gnashing of teeth kind of understanding. I don’t really work from that framework. To tell you the truth, I don’t know about the existance of a literal hell. I just read a book that looks at our cultures treatment of hell from way back and about how guys like Dante formed our beliefs more than scripture. But that is a side point.
   I also realize that you were saying more through the “building on fire” analogy. To you, the idea creates a measurable effect on us, but it doesn’t mean the building is really on fire. Therefore, you question the “experience” of God. I have two thoughts. 1. If you don’t “experience” God as you suggest…does that mean He/she doesn’t exist? I say not necessarily. 2. It causes me to wonder why you believe your LOVE for Cassie really exists. It too can be measured (similarly to an experience with God). But is it really love? In the same way, I don’t think you can prove whether there is a FIRE of love or not. Please help me.

   By the way. The cat anology works….except that none of us brought scripture in to prove the existance of God. That was the Jehovah’s Witnesses that came to your door last week.

   I was rambling and candid here. I’d love to talk with you more.

4. Mallee on 16 Jun 2007 at 11:19 pm #

   All,

   There are so many comments, arguments, and agreements that I would love to make in response to your very thoughtful conversation…but I lack the time or energy so I will say this…

   * There needs to be more women in this conversation.

   * Marriage does not equal love, it is merely a social construct that may soon be obsolete because women are not a lower class. Love is a choice…was not that one of the first lessons learned in intro to psych at college (The Road Less Traveled)? Love, and all other emotions, and “God” for that matter are concepts: words we use to describe an experience, or an idea, but is not tangible.

   * All “religion” is also a social construct for matters of control over societal issues/ills/problems. That is why they all claim they are the only way, with harsh repercussions to feed into that human emotion of fear: another concept of an experience.

   * Perhaps Theists, Atheists, and Agnostics simply don’t want to be wrong…the reason they continue to fight over the need for only one view, or not claim to have one. Again, the desire to have control by being right…human nature.

   * There is no one right answer, we are all different people with different views and different experience. We cannot force people to believe only our view, that would go against free will aka human nature. If I hold up a quarter between BLB and Mcrom, Mcrom will say it has ‘a man’s face’ on it and says, “In God We Trust.” While BLB will say it has has an eagle with open wings. Neither is wrong, and both are right. It depends on perspective. The answers will not come if we only look from our own point of view, but they will come when we accept others views as also right, or else we will only live half truths.
   * Blahh….Blahhh..Blahh….

   You are both right, and wrong, as am I ( but i think i am right, or else i would not be part of the conversation…human nature…free will…sin).

   Personally I have come to understand God and Love quite differently, and in a way that neither of you (males) will ever have the joy of experiencing…sorry. Observe and experience conception and growth of a child ( I don’t mean “have sex” but you can if you like). It is impossible for me to see it only scientifically/logically, or only emotionally and spiritually. One cannot exist without the other. Also, you may not be able to prove Love or God, but the physical effects on the human brain when love is withheld from a child is proof enough for me. If trauma occurs because Love does not, Love is real.

   Finally, one last comment on love; Love has many meanings, and I never truly knew love until I had my child. For me, no love compares to that.

   And for what it is worth, BLB that is an outstanding quote, and you both make some good points, perhaps you would have come to a conclusion had you been smoking some pot, or downing a forty…you know I’m joking.

5. BLB on 27 Aug 2007 at 5:50 am #

   Hello everyone!

   Wow, thank you for your responses. I can’t express to you how important these conversation are to me, simple because I desire transparency. I hope that you all know very well that I am in deep gratitude for the openness in this conversation. Especially, since these questions touch on the very core of our being. It is comforting to know that regardless of our disagreements we are still committed to one another as friends. Thank you all for the safe environment for this discussion.

   Below in red are my responses to specific parts of your emails:

   My Response to Matt:

   Matt Says:
   This is how I KNOW that I love you:

   1) My life is more enjoyable because of these interactions,– interactions that I honestly believe I wouldn’t have without you.
   2) Because despite your wildest passionate arguments, you still want every conversation to end with a joke about dirty underwear or Bob’s Big Boy. This helps me keep conversations simply that– conversations, and not little battles for philosophical points.
   3) Because you and I are very different, and yet there is something intangible that connects me forever to you, something I can’t explain. I could call it “Blue Nirvana”, or a spiritual bond. Regardless, it is something that I recognize as unique to my relationship with you.

   These things make me conclude that Love, in its infinite sense, connects us.

   Brian Says:

   Thank you Matt! I really like your three points, and I would never attempt to disprove the intangible connection we have, be it a “spiritual bond” or my favorite “Blue Nirvana” (that just seems like a wonderful combination of the Hindu faith and The Blue Man Group, which I can only imagine the creativity that would come in Blue Nirvana!)

   However, I would just call that connection love, which I can rationally believe in.

   Matt Says:
   I didn’t try to prove it, or examine it, I only explained it as far as I have experienced it. That is also how I attempt to describe God, and explain my encounters with God. There are some things in the Universe that we can understand, examine, and explain; and other things which we only observe without being able to examine them or fully comprehend or grasp them.

   I simply can not get past the fact that there is some “force” in my life that encourages me, convicts me, enlightens me, and draws me closer to it. I also can not get past the fact that Christianity continues to provide the most cohesive framework for me to understand God, the Universe, and Everything (versus the number 42, for example). At the core of my fundamental belief in God is the problem of Evil. Science (or Reason, or Logic) simply does not provide a meaningful explanation for the problem of Evil. Science often says that there is no problem, evil is simply our perception of a natural process. It is just a side-effect of competition or survival or natural to our species, therefore we shouldn’t make such a big deal out of it, just dish out punishments as another tool in the process of survival of the fittest. This does not explain why evil exists, NOR does it explain how to deal with evil redemptively.

   Brian Says

   Again, I cannot disprove and will never attempt to disprove your connection with GOD or “THE FORCE”

   (I could say something very funny here Star Wars related… but I won’t)

   I also agree that YOU have been able to interpret the Christian framework in such a way that is only serving humanity and not hurting it. Others, in fact many others I cannot say the same.

   Now about evil…I believe evil is a human perception born of sociological mores. Which I believe are important… I am glad that we are a social community of mammals and have the capability to choose not to fight, steal, murder or something else that may be thought as evil. But in the end I think we made it up, and it was a real good thing we did. As far as punishment is concerned … that is the role of our human society to determine as a group, and we have done something about that; in modern times, it is trial by jury, in ancient times it was more barbaric than that. Defining evil is the same to me as why we invented traffic lights… it is functional. So I kind of agree with the scientific explanation you mentioned, but I hold it at a much higher level of importance.

   Matt Says:
   Nevertheless, science/logic/reason is a helpful and necessary human capacity that has to be used liberally in one’s journey of faith. Contrary to your statement below, I believe that faith strengthens reason beyond what it is capable of alone, just as reason strengthens faith. Just as faith without works is dead, so is faith without reason. Faith is not blind unless it stands alone (sorry to step on some Reformed toes here, going against “Faith Alone…”). But Reason alone is equally blind.

   Brian Says:

   I disagree that “Reason without Faith is dead”. Simply put, we live our daily lives by reasoning with each choice you make. You reason each morning when your alarm goes off, that if you do not get up, you may be late for work. You then reason that 5 more minutes sleeping and skipping a shower could allow you to be on time. You then reason that today you have a choice that scrambling eggs, and making pancakes for breakfast would not be as fast as a bowl of cereal… none of this requires faith, everything here is measurable and can be scientifically proven.

   If your gas tank was 100% empty, not a drop in it! And you had enough faith that, even though it was empty you could still drive to work and back. I could easily say that reason tells me you won’t get far, so you better get gas.

   Matt Says:

   Reason alone leaves one with a purely materialistic view of the world, as if only that which is physical and observable is true. The Materialist view of the world does not answer ultimate questions of justice, peace, love, and hate, it simple accepts them as human constructs and does not provide compassionate remedies.

   Brian Says:

   Yes,Yes, and Yes. However, rationale can be used to talk about justice, peace, love and hate. And rationale can give someone reason to be compassionate.

   Matt Says:
   Overall, I think we agree on ALOT, but it’s the conclusions we come to that make us very different.

   1) We agree that we cannot prove the existence of God
   a) For you that means that belief in God is not necessary and perhaps even somewhat illogical.
   b) For me that means that God interacts with humanity on a different level which defies logical explanation. Let’s say that we only knew of the existence of the numbers 2 and 3. We discover addition and realize that there is also 4 and 5. Then we discover multiplication and realize that there are numbers up to 25. Just because 25 is the limit of our abilities doesn’t necessitate that 26 and beyond don’t exist at all. It also doesn’t necessitate that letters can’t bring meaning to numbers as well (as in algebra). Just because science attempts to explain everything that is observable, doesn’t necessitate that science explains everything.

   Brian Says:

   I don’t claim to have knowledge that there is nothing beyond what my four senses along with my brain can logically conclude. But…

   Going by your logic (the logic that you believe God exists because we cannot prove he doesn’t)

   We should also believe in a billion other things that we cannot prove do not exist. There very well could be an invisible book that explains, to whoever believes in it, that humans are just a blip in the existence of the universe. That we are not even part of the larger plan, which is: that Cat’s from the planet Catnip, will eventually evolve to great and powerful beings and rule the entire universe. They will then lock humans in a house made of carpet and throw little cookies at them to make them jump.

   Matt Says:
   2) We agree that Love cannot be proven, but can be observed.
   a) for you that means that all intangible things can be explained by their effect on humanity, making them only true and significant IF they have physical implications.
   b) for me, Love can not be proven because it is part of the nature of God, which is beyond our human rational understanding. We see it and recognize it’s influence, but many chose to ignore it or lessen its influence in their lives, while others choose to live and die by it and try to encourage its influence in their lives.

   Brian Says:

   That is a beautiful way to describe love. Again I respect your interpretation because your not smacking people upside the head with a bible, telling them they are going to hell… (and I truly believe fundamentalist that do smack people upside the head with the bible, do this out of unselfish love. I know because I used too evangelize door to door…it had nothing to do with me, but everything to do with my faithfulness to my calling of the Great Commission. )

   Matt Says:
   (Now, for my abrupt ending because I just realized that I’ve blabbed on for too long:) In the end, I believe this discussion is best served by asking “What is love and what do we do with it?”

   Brian Says:

   I couldn’t agree more! I LOVE LOVE!

   MY RESPONSE TO JUSTIN’S EMAIL

   Justin said:

   Firstly, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the subject. As I stated before, I feel like you have hinted at your specific beliefs and talked about how you are in a different place. But I personally haven’t heard exactly where you are at. I am glad that you are being vulnerable. I also want to say that I didn’t like the dynamic that started to occur. I could tell that you felt defensive and emotive and, as you stated “being the only agnostic” in the room.

   I think it is good that you are throwing these ideas our way, knowing that they probably won’t meet smiles and nods. It is risky and it shows trust in your friends. When you don’t share, I feel like you don’t trust me.

   Brian Says:

   I appreciate the openness that I have felt from everyone in order to express myself, and I must admit that it is not something that is very easy to “confess” since I am very aware that no one in my circle (that I know of) is in a similar place. I realize that this subject matter hits on our most defining characteristics as people, and it can be incredibly difficult to state my thoughts without insulting or demeaning yours, but this is also true vice versa. For some time now, because I have found myself on the outskirts of faith circles, (yet inevitably surrounded by them) I have also felt the slings and arrows of the counter positions. At times realizing the even my friendships with these people will most likely never be the same because of “my choice in theology” or one could say “their choice in not accepting me for who I have become” … My solace is that I have in some way progressed from angry…. to numb….. to forgiving, in order to cope. I have sometimes felt connected with the very real circumstances of the gay man or women “coming out” to a community that adamantly disagrees with their lifestyle choice. So I really appreciate you recognizing the risk that I do take by “coming out”.

   Coming to this place was never easy and has been more difficult than you might know, even recently. But this is not a knee jerk reaction, nor is it a rebellion against God. I have been on this journey that began with a few tough theological questions for 10 years now. It certainly has been well thought over…. and over and over.

   Justin Says:

   That said, I do have to confess that I believe you are selling us short. I get the sense from your explanation that you think Christians, at some point, short circuit, difficult and flexible thinking in the name of faith. This is upseting a bit because I am wrestling with questions about the exclusivity of our faith even now. Your friends, while they may land in the Christian camp, are not fundamentalists that make your skin crawl. We love thinking deeply. And we, like you, are not able to look at faith with totally objective lenses. If you are honest, your objectivity is tainted by your negative experiences in the front row of chapel and in other places. While a strict interpretation of scripture does imply all others are wrong and we are right, I like you, choose not to judge. And that does not make me not a Christian, inspired by the life of Christ.

   Brian Says:

   I am glad you said something, because I would have never guessed that that is where you thought that I was pegging you … as fundamentalist. Actually, that couldn’t more incorrect in my thought towards you all. I would never approach you in the way that I did if I thought you were fundamentalists. The mere reason we can have the conversation at all is because you are not anywhere near a fundamentalist mind set.

   In response to the part that you feel I was assuming you “short circuit” somewhere:

   I have never believed that you were not a deep thinker. There are thousands of deep thinkers who believe as you do. I don’t dismiss this whatsoever. I welcome it with an open mind. If someone could convince me that having faith in God is without a doubt something I don’t want to pass up, I would jump on board.
   I am not sure I understood the last part but I can say that my experience in the front row was actually not a negative one… it was years later when I came to these conclusions about my experiences. I had never thought in depth about the scientific explanation of my experiences while they were happening because I never allowed that to be an option.

   Justin Says:

   As for your explanation of how love is rational. I too think it is. I don’t think it is empirical, proven as you want the existence of God to be though. I know that you admit this. But it is still odd for me to see you accept love as rational and true. But for God you demand a higher standard. Rational does not work for you…only empirical proof

   Brian Says:

   Good point, my language in my email was a bit misleading. I should reword it to read that I don’t believe there is any rationality to claim that God exists. But an atheist would say that there is an abundance of rationality to say that God doesn’t exist. Remember the reason why I can say that it is rational to believe in love is based on empirical evidence that can be proven by reaction and action between two parties.

   EX 1:

   I physically smile when you verbally say “I love you” both action and reaction can be empirically proven) With God that reaction and action between two parties (God and Human) can not be empirical proven both ways. Therefore the rationality is not there.

   Justin:

   I think faith is more like looking up into the sky and observing the sun peeking through the clouds, the birds, and thinking….rationally….”Man, this is amazing. This is more than just chance.” Its less like your story of impending fire in the building.

   Brian Says:

   I agree that it is amazing and beautiful, I would even say that it is far more than just chance… this process took billions of years to create… by no means is that just chance… it is a beautiful evolutionary process which is not random whatsoever.

   Justin Says:

   Even in your choosing of that story to characterize Christianity, you are framing a fear driven, fire and gnashing of teeth kind of understanding. I don’t really work from that framework. To tell you the truth, I don’t know about the existence of a literal hell. I just read a book that looks at our cultures treatment of hell from way back and about how guys like Dante formed our beliefs more than scripture. But that is a side point.

   Brian Says

   The building on fire scenario can be anything…how about excitement rather that fear… lets make it that I came in and yelled “A BEST BUY TRUCK IS OUTSIDE GIVING AWAY FREE 42 INCH FLAT SCREEN TV’S”

   Or maybe something more believable to induce excitement “FREE BEN AND JERRY”S ICE SCREAM OUTSIDE”

   Or maybe something that induces a different emotion…anger…. “HEY EVERYONE, THIS GROUP OF LITTLE KIDS ARE PEEING ALL OVER YOUR CARS OUTSIDE”

   To comment about hell… I don’t believe in it either. Even when I had a strong faith in God I couldn’t believe in hell because it was counter to what I understood as God’s unconditional love character.
   Justin Says:

   I also realize that you were saying more through the “building on fire” analogy. To you, the idea creates a measurable effect on us, but it doesn’t mean the building is really on fire. Therefore, you question the “experience” of God. I have two thoughts. 1. If you don’t “experience” God as you suggest…does that mean He/she doesn’t exist? I say not necessarily. 2. It causes me to wonder why you believe your LOVE for Cassie really exists. It too can be measured (similarly to an experience with God). But is it really love? In the same way, I don’t think you can prove whether there is a FIRE of love or not. Please help me.

   Brian Says:

   1. No, it does not mean God exist or doesn’t exist, that is exactly my point in my last paragraph. “I personally believe that no one knows for sure [of God’s existence], the Atheists cannot prove that God doesn’t exist and the Theists cannot prove that he does”
   2. A. I believe that it is a rational conclusion that Love exists, based off of the measurable and empirical interactions between us. However the rationale is not proof, therefore you are right, I cannot prove that love exists, nor can I prove that I love Cassie, but because of the overwhelming empirical evidence that humans do things in the name of love, gives the rationale to believe it that is does exists.

   B. I disagree that “God Experiences” can be measured in the same way (or similarly) as “Love between two beings can be measured” see my EX1 above.

   Response to Michelle Allee

   Michelle Says:

   There are so many comments, arguments, and agreements that I would love to make in response to your very thoughtful conversation…but I lack the time or energy so I will say this…

   Brian Says:

   Yes you are right, but I felt like I owe it to each of you to respond because I started this!

   Michelle Says:

   * There needs to be more women in this conversation.

   Brian Says:

   Yes, I emailed many more women… Cassie, Melissa, Marin, I value and need you thoughts… but they may be just busy.

   Michelle Says:

   * Marriage does not equal love, it is merely a social construct that may soon be obsolete because women are not a lower class. Love is a choice…was not that one of the first lessons learned in intro to psych at PLNU (The Road Less Traveled)? Love, and all other emotions, and “God” for that matter are concepts: words we use to describe an experience, or an idea, but is not tangible.

   Brian Says:

   I agree marriage does not equal love, but it can be empirical evidence that is an expression of love. I also agree that marriage will soon be obsolete (I have had this conversation with a few people… on K-Pax they don’t have marriage And yes, I agree with the rest of your thoughts on Love being a choice, and God being a concept by which we describe our experiences. It is a way to help us understand a complex universe. The problems come with all the bad interpretations.

   Michelle Says:

   * All “religion” is also a social construct for maters of control over societal issues/ills/problems. That is why they all claim they are the only way, with harsh repercussions to feed into that human emotion of fear: another concept of an experience.

   Brian Says:

   Absolutely! I couldn’t agree more.

   Michelle Says:

   * Perhaps Theists, Atheists, and Agnostics simply don’t want to be wrong…the reason they continue to fight over the need for only one view, or not claim to have one. Again, the desire to have control by being right…human nature.

   Brian Says:

   This is too simplified for me… the reason I state my view is for my community to know me. This is simply because I know that Faith, Christianity and Religion have a huge influence to most my friends, therefore I cannot live with this “hidden person of Brian” that never has much to say when we all talk about God. I have to be open about who I am and especially so to my friends. Being wrong… hmmm I admit there is a part of me that thinks 200 hundred years from now the humans will look back in the history books and learn about our primitive religions and be awe struck at the fact that so many of us believed in a real God. But that is not what drives me, nor is that idea a defining one for me.

   Michelle Says:

   * There is no one right answer, we are all different people with different views and different experience. We cannot force people to believe only our view, that would go against free will aka human nature. If I hold up a quarter between Brian and Matt, Matt will say it has ‘a man’s face’ on it and says, “In God We Trust.” While Brian will say it has has an eagle with open wings. Neither is wrong, and both are right. It depends on perspective. The answers will not come if we only look from our own point of view, but they will come when we accept others views as also right, or else we will only live half truths.

   Brian Says:

   Yes Yes Yes Yes! I am cool with that as long as there is a respect for man and women kind. My biggest problem with religion is that it’s nature of claiming truth and condemning others to hell creates wars. Humans, as we know are passionate about these things and some take it to great and violent measures to live up to their faith. Which I think you are addressing as well, in your coin analogy.

   Michelle Says:

   * Blahh….Blahhh..Blahh….

   Brian Says:

   I really understand you!… Did we know each other in a past life on the planet BLAH?

   Michelle Says:

   You are both right, and wrong, as am I ( but i think i am right, or else i would not be part of the conversation…human nature…free will…sin).

   Personally I have come to understand God and Love quite differently, and in a way that neither of you will ever have the joy of experiencing…sorry. Observe and experience conception and growth of a child ( I don’t mean “have sex” but you can if you like). It is impossible for me to see it only scientifically/logically, or only emotionally and spiritually. One cannot exist without the other. Also, you may not be able to prove Love or God, but the physical effects on the human brain when love is withheld from a child is proof enough for me. If trauma occurs because Love does not, Love is real.

   Brian Says:

   I DO TOO… know what its like to birth a child! I guess you forgot that I am a hermaphrodite and got myself pregnant.

   But really your are right, I cannot claim the experience of giving birth and carrying a child, but I do think that science and logic can exist without emotions or spirituality. But I don’t believe emotions can exist without science. I believe that love is real because of the empirical evidence, and you make it even more rational by your incredible example of trauma occurring in the absence of love.

   Michelle Says:

   Finally, one last comment on love; Love has many meanings, and I never truly knew love until I had my child. For me, no love compares to that.

   And for what it is worth, Brian that is an outstanding quote, and you both make some good points, perhaps you would have come to a conclusion had you been smoking some pot, or downing a forty…you know I’m joking.

   Michelle Allee, MSW (had to put that in there…just got it! Whoohoo!)

   Brian Says:

   I believe in the Pot Fairy… does that mean I have faith?

6. mcrom on 27 Aug 2007 at 7:20 am #

   All,

   I promised myself not to reply…but I should know myself better. I’ll
   keep it short!

   Brian,

   My logic isn’t that God exists because we can’t prove that s/he doesn’t.
   My logic is that proof is a scientific language game that God just
   doesn’t play. It’s like using automotive language to define classical
   music. Mechanics don’t pretend to be classical musicians or vice-versa,
   so why does science think it can’t define metaphysical reality?

   That goes to the heart of my beef with the Materialist view: science is
   a descriptive language, not a defining one. Science observes things that
   are observable and tries to express what happened in ways that help us
   predict future behavior. That’s fine, great, necessary…but it does not
   DEFINE reality.

   Theology is also merely descriptive, but its job is to describe how we
   deal with the philosophical problems of the world in light of the
   reality of a higher power. Together, science and theology (or faith and
   reason) work together to build a framework to sketch reality. Once one
   forgets or neglects the other, reality is lost.

   Lastly, every aspect of our lives requires faith and reason. We go
   through our daily routines rationally, but with the faith that nothing
   extraordinary will happen. That extraordinary event represents all the
   things that are not in our control. I walk and breathe by the faith that
   all extraordinary things are in Gods hands, and God allows them in my
   life when I need them, and disallows them when they are not beneficial.

   That’s it,
   Matt C.

7. jp on 27 Aug 2007 at 7:24 am #

   Thanks for the thoughtful response to my message. I now understand your position better. I now see that you think love is rational because of a measurable 2 way interaction. This makes sense. We are never going to get God’s resting heart rate. So by that definition, it isn’t rational to believe in God. When I am surfing a wave…it sure feels like an interaction though.
   I also realize that you are not saying God does not exist…but simply, you are not persuaded that He does exist. That is clear to me now.
   Oh yeah, I don’t think that you think I am a fundamentalist. It just came through in the way you characterize the Christian perspective, namely, that if you believe in God, then necessarily you are saying all others are wrong. And then the old “cat book that proves the cat book is right” points to a fundamentalist understanding. I did not mention or hear anyone mention scripture as proof that God exists.

   You did ask at the party “what if you are wrong?”
   I seriously, do not see the downside of this. I feel that, even if I am wrong, I will have lived a life more characterized by love than otherwise. I am inspired by the life of Jesus. And shallow or not, I use it to inspire my own decisions as much as possible, not so that I can save someone from the flames, but for the good of humanity and out of thankkfulness.

   I am proud of you for coming out. I feel closer to you. I never realized it weighed on you in such an intense and real way. Lets keep the dialogue up…even after the emails faze out.

   Integrity First,

   JP

8. blb on 27 Aug 2007 at 7:26 am #

   Interesting thoughts!

   Matt.. good stuff… I had to sit with this a while… here is are my thoughts:

   Brian Says:

   I see science and religion trying to explain the same thing using the same language… the origins of the universe, and why we are here, life. They both are laying claims. Big Bang, Black Hole, By God’s voice, Genisis, etc. Science has not arrived at any proof yet, only theories and religions of the world have stories to explain it but can’t prove it nor do they have any rational evidential arguments. The fact is they ARE both trying to claim the orgins and defining exactly how things came to existence. Science has given claims to why we are here and our purpose, so has the religions of the worlds.

   Just because science may say our purpose here is nothing more than to survive, that is just as much a valid claim to define why we are here as God saying it is to worship and serve your master God Almighty who art in Heaven.

   Now defining reality… science absolutely attempts to define reality … “the reality is that the earth is round or that it is raining or that it is snowing.

   Defining the metaphysical that is not within the laws of nature or science, basically supernatural things, which is like proving that God exist…. you can’t prove that. Therefore science sees no reason to try to prove things that have no emperical or rational reasoning of its existence. This is why I find that everything comes down to the three choices… believe .. don’t believe or don’t claim to know. I personally can’t help but choosing the only honest answer I can give… I dont know.

   Great thoughts Matt thanks, I really appreciate how you think, you challenge me!

   Brian

9. clb on 27 Aug 2007 at 7:29 am #

   My turn, my turn!

   Thanks everyone for the reminder that both rationality and faith can go together. I tend to do the pendulum swing and say eew, nasty, I HATE the boring, empty “rationalism/materialism”–give me miracle, mystery, beauty, faith, the unknowable stuff! But I’ll try to be good and remember that there is credence to both elements.

   I deeply appreciate you guys honoring Brian’s need to share himself. Thanks for being hospitable to his soul (you do have one, you know ;). And it’s nice to not have to be the only one engaging in these dialogues w/ him When Brian and I debate this stuff, we tend to keep making the same points, back and forth. Bringing other voices in helps to shake us out of that rut, as you each respond differently than he or I. So now you know the conversations Brian and I regularly wrestle with until the wee hours of the morning!!

   I LOVE Michelle’s final lines about how she knows love is real. Amazing. And Matt, I so resonate w/ your description of your experience of the mysterious force that we name GOD, and w/ your description of the limits of our finite brains’ logic. Justin, your gentle, open humility blows me away; it teaches me. Rick–thanks for being enthusiastic and never threatened by this territory!

   Brian, where I differ w/ you (as you well know) is what I DO w/ the unknowable nature of all this. I see no reason for it to paralyze me religiously, being stopped in my tracks. Instead, I’d rather err on the side of action, of engaging in religious/spiritual life, walking on. Brian accuses me of being a closet agnostic myself, but I say that I “qualify” as a Christian b/c my belief in God is a good 80% (w/ unbelief only being about 20%.) Ok, some days the numbers do flip, but mostly that’s where I end up. And that’s enough for me to go full force as if God exists, even though I can pretty well bet that the God I’m imagining is probably only a fraction of the whole picture of God, and that I probably don’t have everything right in my thinking about God. It’s still worth it to me.

   lots more I could say…I’ll save if for later…

   cass

10. jp on 27 Aug 2007 at 7:30 am #

    [Dear Brian]

    Thanks for the thoughtful response to my message. I now understand your position better. I now see that you think love is rational because of a measurable 2 way interaction. This makes sense. We are never going to get God’s resting heart rate. So by that definition, it isn’t rational to believe in God. When I am surfing a wave…it sure feels like an interaction though.
    I also realize that you are not saying God does not exist…but simply, you are not persuaded that He does exist. That is clear to me now.
    Oh yeah, I don’t think that you think I am a fundamentalist. It just came through in the way you characterize the Christian perspective, namely, that if you believe in God, then necessarily you are saying all others are wrong. And then the old “cat book that proves the cat book is right” points to a fundamentalist understanding. I did not mention or hear anyone mention scripture as proof that God exists.

    You did ask at the party “what if you are wrong?”
    I seriously, do not see the downside of this. I feel that, even if I am wrong, I will have lived a life more characterized by love than otherwise. I am inspired by the life of Jesus. And shallow or not, I use it to inspire my own decisions as much as possible, not so that I can save someone from the flames, but for the good of humanity and out of thankfulness.

    I am proud of you for coming out. I feel closer to you. I never realized it weighed on you in such an intense and real way. Lets keep the dialog up…even after the emails faze out.

    Integrity First,

    JP

11. blb on 27 Aug 2007 at 7:33 am #

    Blb response to Jp:

    Wow, Justin I really appreciated this email. If I could have asked for one thing to come from this dialog this would be it! Let me explain why…

    First, I feel like you now understand my deep desire for truth and most of all my desire for integrity.

    Second, you expressed a very clear understanding of my logic and reason. (sooo appreciated!)

    And third, you challenged me,… You are so correct about you to feeling like I was treating you like a fundamentalist, because of the exact things you mentioned; the circular argument (the cat book example) and the exclusivity part… I am sorry for that. I guess I am so used to that being a common argument, almost by default, I blurt it out! I am truly sorry for that. I didn’t give you or the others the credit they deserve there.

    And fourth, your reason for staying Christian and Believing is incredibly persuasive and I have gone back and forth on that one aspect for along time now. You, and others like you, are my hope for the changing of hearts of those that do not see Christianity in the peaceful, loving, compassionate way as you do. Without a doubt I truly BELIEVE in the compassionate, virtuous and peace giving “souls” of my Christian friends (and wife! who is also my friend!) Thank you.

    I also wanted to make a comment on Rick’s emails… “unfortunately” Rick and I talk practically everyday about this stuff and because of that I feel like I have already responded to his emails… but I need to at least publicly say that Rick is truly a man with a beautiful spirit! I can only hope to carry life on a rose petal as he does… he collects and appreciates its beauty, yet is very aware of the thorns, and treads lightly as to not loose one pedal. Thank you Rick for you insight!

    I plan on writing one other email* that will help each of you understand what this means for me… as someone who is without the one thing we have known for our entire lives (God). I will attempt to answer questions such as; the question of morality and some other things. If you have any specific questions as to how this will change my way of living… please, please please send the questions my way… I want to answer them and especially the hard ones.

    *it will be a few days before that email is done.. because I gotta finish a website by this weekend, kind of in a time crunch.

    In Peace and Love,

    Brian

12. JennT on 27 Aug 2007 at 7:34 am #

    Here is another lady to represent! Sorry if this email seems to jump around a bit… it’s the best I can do after a long day with a crazy german lady!

    First of all, there is a lot of GOD talk in this “on love” email. Your email subject heading should have said “on love & GOD” unless you, brian, are secretly a bible-believing christian and believe that GOD is love? Har har:)

    I think I just want to respond to a few things from each of the people that have commented.

    Matt mentioned science doesn’t attempt to deal with the problem of evil. I guess you are right when it comes to hard science—because hard science needs something to quantify, to test, etc. And how do you quantify intentions or determine how much of someone’s choices are due to their own evil will, or their lack of knowledge, or their mental illness, etc.? Science really can’t deal with questions like “why does evil exist”—it’s just not set up that way. Does sociology or psych counts as a science? Cuz I think those areas of study (outside of the theology/GOD talk) present a much better option for trying understanding the question of evil. Or maybe I think the word “evil” is just too black and white a term..

    I think it is a little presumptuous to say that science can exist without human emotion or “faith” – maybe this is just a female perspective because throughout history women have had to rely on their own internal knowledge and intuition to survive in many cases – especially since we (the lower class as michelle mentioned) weren’t really given the option to study “science.” I don’t have proof, of that… I just believe it – or I heard about it in a feminist thought class (or both…hmmm). Maybe if someone agrees or has some intuition of what I’m talking about they can help me out.

    I also think it is unfair to say that those who live by reason alone are simply living a materialistic existence and that they don’t have compassionate remedies. There are plenty of secular humanists out there who would disagree (and I don’t know of any wars that have been fought or abortion clinics bombed in the name of secular humanism).

    I don’t know if I’m even willing to say there is enough evidence to say “love” exists in the way we seem to be discussing it (as though it were an invisible force or something(?)—or maybe I’m misunderstanding…) Isn’t there a chance that love for our children is a product of our evolutionary development in order to continue our species; acts of kindness make us feel good & maybe there’s some karma in it (oooh karma – another good topic of discussion!:); being in a ‘loving’ relationship actually gives quite a few benefits, if I do say so myself. Ha! I don’t know if that is true or not, I just wanted to make point that I don’t think all this “empirical” evidence about love is very empirical.

    I think what it comes down to is that certainty is a myth. If we are all honest, we really don’t “know” that GOD exists or even that love exists. But some of us choose to believe GOD exists and we do believe it for some good reasons. Some of us have been ingrained with the idea that “certain belief” is very important in the life of a person of faith; we function under the ‘assumption’ (if I can call it that without it sounding offensive to some) of GOD’s existence because it works for us in our view of the world and in our view of what matters to us in the world. We think, (we experience), that it makes us better people, that it makes our lives better (even if it makes our lives more difficult-ha!) and that it helps us understand or make some sense of troubling things in the world.

    I guess an example might be: I believe/have faith that the sun is going to rise in the east sometime before my alarm goes off in the morning. There is a chance this could not happen – (like, ‘nuclear annihilation in my lifetime’… Does anyone know which indigo girls song that is from?) – but I take it on faith and go to sleep and don’t even worry about it. This helps my life to be functional and helps me to get my ZZZZs. I don’t know what I think about GOD or “THE FORCE” right now, but the force is helping me get by until I get to whatever the next step is. I’m cool with baby steps.

    Some of us choose to believe—we love miracles & good vibes all that stuff that cassie mentioned cuz it makes the crazy ride of life that much more magical. And, while I think there out to be a little more acknowledgement from the Christian community about the dastardly evil things done every day, even now, even by people that we love dearly, in the name of faith—I think right now I choose to believe that, overall, choosing to believe can be a very good thing. And I don’t think one “short circuits” or sacrifices their integrity to do so. I also choose to believe that not choosing to believe is a very good thing too. I love that coin analogy from Michelle because that is exactly the point. None of the people in this conversation are more wrong or right than the rest—we all just get the chance to learn from each and experience a little bit of life from each other. And that, my friends, is a beautiful thing.

    Brian, I am sad that you feel on the outskirts of faith circles. I don’t think you are as outside as you feel. As you say yourself, you can’t prove GOD exists either way, so it’s not like you’re really on the outside (like a true atheist might be). You’re just in the uncomfortable position of trying to straddle both. Maybe you are just more on the outside circle of certainty than anything else. I don’t think it means you would be going against your agnosticism to discuss the possible nature of GOD, *if* that GOD exists. Although, maybe that seems like a moot discussion to you under the circumstances… I don’t know, but it’s just a thought I had.

    Yay! Thanks to everyone who shared. I love stuff like this!

    jenn

13. asianpersuasion on 27 Aug 2007 at 7:36 am #

    Well, there was a lot said by others, so I really just want to respond to the initial question and just give my point of view, and not try to respond to others’ responses.

    I come from an engineering/scientific background where empirical is used with mostly science and math. It is kind of difficult to use that word when referring to such abstract things as love and God. When I looked up the definition to empirical, it states that it is an adjective meaning–based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation and experiment rather than theory or pure logic. There are many ways to go about “proving” something. So let us just apply an empirical approach to love and God.

    Does love exist and how can we prove that empirically? Everyone has their own definitions of love, which is fine. Everything from physical love to parental love. Personally I believe love is a word given to an emotion or action, just like you have a word for other emotions we experience; anger, hate, fear, shame, etc. So, can we verify love by observation and experiment? Well, personally I experience and observe love all the time. It is all around you, from a simple phone call from a friend on your birthday to a parent comforting their child when they had a bad dream or your significant other rubbing your feet when you had a long day. These are all observable and given a label, love. As far as experiments to verify love… I have done some “tests” of significant others throughout my life—like seeing how they would respond in certain situations (I know it isn’t healthy to do that, but I ain’t perfect)—and I realize that doesn’t really prove anything because I’m just setting them up one way or the other.

    I have kind of a crazy experiment in my head that might “prove” love existed–If you were to take a newborn child and put it in front of an oncoming bus, and the parents see the child, I’m pretty sure we would all know the outcome of that: The parents would walk away because they don’t want to get hit by the bus…just kidding. They would run to save their child that they have a loving bond with. Of course there will be some that would say that is just an instinctual thing, not love. But, in MY opinion, I think love does exist.

    Anyway, so the next part of the question is: can we prove with empirical evidence that God does exist? Let’s take the first thing, observation. This is probably debatable depending on how you define God– as a spirit that can evoke emotion, a physical being, or some say there is God in everything around you, or only we are representations of God, (according to the Bible). (On an aside, I really loved your example of the book of Cat. I couple months back I was watching some Discovery thing on the tomb of Jesus and it just made me think about how so many people take everything written in the Bible as the absolute truth. I’m also reminded of Orwell’s book 1984, where the government has people go through literary works and change the words or cut stuff out and then reprint them to fit their agenda. Anyway, don’t get me started on that.) Okay, back to God. I personally believe that there is a higher being that created or placed us on this planet. I also believe that there aren’t a bunch of different gods, Buddha, Allah, Brahma, etc.
    Myself, I observe God on a daily basis, when I look in the mirror or at a rock or a hummingbird. People have said that they feel God within them, through the Spirit. I think love and God are not very tangible items. It is impossible to see with your own eyes a “slab of love” or the physical body of God. They are often times more of a feeling. In the end, everyone will have their own examples of how they observe God. It comes down to faith really, and like you said that is an argument you can’t win. Okay, now let us take the experiment part. That is a hard one. I can’t think of an experiment that you would be able to see that God does exist. It would have been nice to be there when Jesus turned water into wine, or God (through Moses) parted the Red Sea, but that is just in a book—and in fact those examples still don’t really prove anything about god, (just that Jesus & Moses might have been Jedis). So we could take my crazy experiment of the newborn in the bus, and instead have the parents just kneel and pray to God to save the baby and see what happens. Who knows. I personally don’t think it would have a happy ending. Even if miraculously the baby farts and blows the bus out of the way, we still wouldn’t know for sure if that was God’s doing. So, since empirical is defined by observation AND experiment, we don’t have empirical proof that God does exist.
    After all that nonsense being said, it basically comes down to what you have already stated at the end of your email. The three main options–1. God exists 2. God doesn’t exist 3. We don’t know. So everyone is right! Yeah!

14. clb on 27 Aug 2007 at 7:39 am #

    A touchy-feely special God quote:

    “I believe in the sun when it is not shining. I believe in love, even when feeling it not. I believe in God, even when God is silent.”
    Found in an inscription in a tunnel where Jews awaited death by Nazis.
    Cassie

15. joeB on 27 Aug 2007 at 7:42 am #

    Hey Brian,

    I know that I never responded to the series of emails that went around earlier, but I thought that I would send mine a little late. First, let me say that I sympathize with your agnosticism. There are many days that I am in the same boat. It is very difficult to believe in God for several reasons, not least of which is the way many religious people behave. Personally, I think the conversation breaks into two primary discussions. The first deals with Christianity (or some other religion) specifically and the second asks questions about theism generally. I think the discussion regarding Christianity has little to no evidence supporting it. It is impossible to provide tangible evidence for the resurrection, the virgin birth, Christ being both God and man, etc. On these positions I believe one must either go the route of Kierkegaard (radical faith) or unbelief. I don’t think that the agnostic position is a legitimate one with regards to Christianity because the tradition demands that one make a decision. To stand in the middle is essentially to reject Christ making it a position of unbelief in the eyes of the church. However, I do believe that agnosticism is a legitimate position in the second discussion surrounding theism generally. This is the discussion that I am more interested in.

    I understand your position concerning a lack of evidence supporting a belief in God. However, I, like Cassie, believe that God should be beyond all possible evidence. If God could somehow be proven, then what we have proven is certainly not God. God is transcendent and beyond comprehension, but describing God this way is not always helpful. Most of the time my faith needs more than pure mystery. It sounds like yours does too, so in the spirit of open conversation and dialogue I would like to share my own thoughts on the issue.

    When dealing with the issue of theism, a few key issues continue to resurface: Love, morality, free-will, compassion, forgiveness, etc. Most of these made there way into the discussion earlier. It seems that there are several ways to think about such issues. One can be a materialist and view each of these commonly experienced phenomena as brain states that have evolved over time to help humans cooperate and procreate. In this view nothing but the natural world exists and all human experience can be reduced to such phenomena. There is a lot of evidence to support this theory (if you are interested both Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins have accessible and influential books in this area. Richard Dawkin’s book is called “The God Delusion”). The problem I have with it is there are still a lot of unanswered questions. For instance, it is very difficult for a materialist to explain how matter became conscious, how we have free-will (actually it is a serious debate whether we have free-will at all), how evolution promoted values that were not purely self-serving, etc. Scientists do have hypothesis, but there is still a lot we don’t know. I believe this opens the door for a reasonable belief in theism. The second way to view phenomena such as love, morality, forgiveness, etc. it to understand it as divine in some way. What I mean by this is humans are unlike any other animal and the things that separate us seem to revolve around abilities that tend to go beyond nature. Thus, things like consciousness, love, free-will and the like are themselves divine. I don’t believe that God is some being who has thoughts, a will, etc., rather God is a force in the universe that makes these phenomena possible. Coincidentally, these things are what make life meaningful. It is true that my love for Kelly might be nothing more than a chemical reaction in my brain, but it certainly seems more than that. Essentially, that is the problem I have with pure scientific accounts; they are all reductive in nature. Science continues to tell us that a particular phenomenon is “nothing more than”… I choose to believe that the answers to life’s really important questions are always “something more” than we originally thought. Thus, if I have a choice between putting my faith in science or in love (which is a mystery, always more), I put my faith in love. Furthermore, with God gives meaning to morality, relationships, etc. that I believe gets stripped if materialism turns out to be true. What gives my life meaning is a sense of purpose, a sense of hope, but if all of this is just one big cosmic accident, then there is no real purpose, not real hope outside of my own conditioned thoughts. I want more than that, I need more than that, and it is this need that leads me to God.

    I know that none of this is very convincing, but it is my testimony. I understand your position more than you know and I respect it because I know it is the result of 30 years of asking questions and pursuing answers. I really do respect you for that. I erased the messages that went to the group. Feel free to send this out to other people, but don’t feel like you have to either. I would love to continue the discussion if you have the time.

    Joe Bankard

16. bipolar2 on 01 Oct 2007 at 9:01 pm #

    ** Indescribably divine **

    Dealing with those mystically inclined, the ‘I-feel-god-in-my-heart’ crowd, and in general all irrationalist believers requires a different approach from dealing with rationalists.

    I know that my god/goddess/demon exists — but he/she/it can not be described, or is beyond human understanding.

    The philosopher Wittgenstein, in one of his seemingly cryptic utterances said, “A nothing would be as good as a something about which nothing could be said.”

    Spelled out: you claim that something exists, but no property (like, being blue) could ever be ascribed to it. This is the famous Western “via negativa” - negative path to god - “neti, neti, neti” not-this, not-this to Hindu mystics. God is not blue, is not evil, is not good . . . .

    Logically, however, a claim that something exists does not ascribe a property to it — or, as you ought to have learned in logic class — existence is not a predicate. (Non-existence is not a predicate either.)

    “Some god exists” seems to be saying something, but it is meaningless. You might as well be saying “bar-bar” or saying nothing at all. The Viennese novelist, Robert Musil wrote “The Man without Qualities.” The man who can’t be there. A nobody. Nothing.

    Nobody can talk about nothing. Who’s doing the talking here? (Nobody?) And what’s being said? (Nothing?) Zen Buddhism figured all this out long ago — hence, koans if you’re lucky or a hard slap in the face when persistently obtuse. Why?

    If a god “is a something about which nothing can be said,” then this putative something is equivalent to a nothing.

    bipolar2
    copyright asserted 2007

17. Dennis Davis on 12 Nov 2008 at 11:27 pm #

    7j42kz6sz4ip11e6

18. Joe Christian on 13 Jan 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    How can you try to prove God’s existance/non-existance with rational, logical arguements? The church has put God “in a box”, through denominations, willfully stifling God’s power and saying “God is this way, and no other”. God is infinite, not of this world, and cannot be explained in “textbook” thinking.
    Rarely does anyone have an original thought on either side. Reading these entries have proved what I have always thought on this matter: People, by inheritance are self-centered. It is not until we are at our lowest point that we began to look outside ourself and all human understanding for answers or help.
    The truth is that we all have faith in something, we all have hope. I hope that I will wake up tomorrow and I have faith that I will. Being a self-centered person, I have an illusion of control. I don’t have any guarantee that I will wake up tomorrow. I don’t even have any control over my next heart beat.
    What a daunting thought to think that all we are, all we have, lies in this present life. To think that there is no more than this. There is just living and dying to dust in the ground, that’s it! If that is your belief, than I say- start livin it up, live life like there is no tomorrow, because for you, there is no tomorrow.

19. Elise on 12 Mar 2009 at 7:57 pm #

    I really don’t understand the need to question a person’s motives or desire to have faith in God; nor, for that matter, to prove that God exists. For if He did not exist, would that make “believers in God,” people of lesser intelligence? I submit not. Faith [in God] is the belief in things not seen, yet hoped for. Hoping for “things not seen,” is the defining clause for maintaining faith in God, whether He exists or not. Personally, I don’t see any problem with hoping for the existence of God (”things not seen”.) And whether or not a person’s hopes are realized is immaterial. For it is the reality and existence of “hope” which motivates a person to persevere in the most adverse circumstances. Hoping is an admirable endeavor, but more importantly, encourages one to live. And this alone is the best argument for the benefit of having faith in God (”hoping for things not seen.”) Even though all people have the ability to “hope,” the person who “hopes for things not seen” should not be questioned for his or her hope in what is “not seen.” (Faith in God.) For, again, hope is an admirable endeavor; thus, so is faith in God.

20. Elise on 12 Mar 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    I really don’t understand the need to question a person’s motives or desire to have faith in God; nor, for that matter, to prove that God exists. For if He did not exist, would that make “believers in God,” people of lesser intelligence? I submit not. Faith [in God] is the belief in things not seen, yet hoped for. Hoping for “things not seen,” is the defining clause for maintaining faith in God, whether He exists or not. Personally, I don’t see any problem with hoping for the existence of God (”things not seen”.) And whether or not a person’s hopes are realized is immaterial for it is the reality and existence of “hope” which motivates a person to persevere in the most adverse circumstances. Hoping is an admirable endeavor, but more importantly, encourages one to live. And this alone is the best argument for the benefit of having faith in God (”hoping for things not seen.”) Even though all people have the ability to “hope,” the person who “hopes for things not seen” should not be questioned for his or her hope in what is “not seen.” (Faith in God.) For, again, hope is an admirable endeavor; thus, so is faith in God.

21. Jen H on 06 Apr 2009 at 10:31 pm #

    Hi again Brian,

    I have 2 little boys and a husband on his way home from work, and simply didn’t have time to read ALL the comments, although I read most of your responses, just to see where you were.. and one thing stood out to me:

    You said:

    “I have been on this journey that began with a few tough theological questions for 10 years now.”

    My question to you is, what theological questions are you referring to? You also said you started reading the Bible in Greek, etc. and that started your journey away from your faith in God - what particular Scriptures did you have a hard time with, that led you to believe that “the Christian faith does not hold any water”??

    Brian, I appreciate your honesty and transparency, and would never look down upon you for that. I too, was in your position at one time. I sat next to people in church in my youth that now I see their lives have fallen away from God, and I never understood that. I had a hard time with it, in fact. I wondered to myself, “How can these people, that I wept with, rejoiced with, that heard the same preaching I heard, who went to the altar calls I went to, now be totally indulged in the world?” The conclusion I have come to, is that these people were in church for other reasons, than I was. For me, I was there for no other reason than my love for God and unshakable faith in God that I had come into. For them, perhaps it was for social reasons? Or perhaps they were raised in church all their lives, and went out of habit, or compulsion? Perhaps it was to score a relationship with a girl or guy they liked? Whatever their reasons, obviously when the rubber hit the road, when “life” set in, they were gone. There were very few people I used to go to church with, that are still in the faith now. Does that mean God doesn’t exist? No. It means that they never had a true, genuine faith in God to begin with, in my observations. Think about it for a minute, Brian… what were the “reasons” you went to church? Was it a true encounter with God that you had, or was it because someone invited you, and you were maybe curious? Or maybe your parents wanted you to go, or maybe there was a cute girl there, who knows what your true, honest reasons were…. only you know that. I am convinced that in every church, there are true believers, and false believers. The true believers have encountered God, truly. NOTHING will shake their faith, no matter what happens in their lives. The others, will be shaken, tested, and tried, and if their foundations aren’t sure, and based upon true faith, and experience with God, they will fall away.

    Please don’t be offended at this - I am only trying to cause you to really search your heart and motives, to see if you were truly born again, or if you just thought you were…. Obviously, you have never encountered God to an extent that you were convinced He was real. You “believed” based on things that made sense to you back then, but now, those things don’t “make sense” now. I am so convinced God exists, that if the world got invated by aliens and the Purple people eaters came to earth…I would still believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Why? Because HE PROVED HIMSELF TO ME to be real. Why me, and not you, you may ask yourself? Because I was willing to believe. I was open, and sincerely wanted to know the truth. I sought for God with all my heart - and it came down to me either knowing that God exists, or committing suicide. Yes…I tried once - I was very depressed in High School - that (death) will seriously make you search for answers (JUST TO MAKE SURE) before you die. It’s funny - even athiests, when faced with death, begin to pray. But anyway… When God revealed Himself to me, it didn’t stop there. I continued seeking more of Him, and finding my experience growing deeper and deeper with Him through the years.

    Let me leave you with one more question. If you were to look at a painter, how would you know he existed? The painting that he painted, right? The painting is proof that the painter exists. Same with a building. How do you know the builder exists? Because the building is proof that the builder exists. The same can be applied to God. How do you know God exists? Because of Creation. Creation is proof that there was a creator. It takes more “faith” to believe the intricacies of the human dna (if you have ever really studied that before) or even the human eye, much less all the beautiful creatures, plants, seasons, etc. that exist on this planet, and this whole great universe exist “by chance”, than it does to believe God created it.

    Just some things to think ponder.

    Take care Brian,
    Jen

22. Jenn T on 07 Apr 2009 at 1:39 am #

    This is probably none of my business, but I can’t help responding to the most recent post from Jen H.

    Jen, I probably dont know you but I found your response lacking in logic and somewhat offensive. Perhaps you can clarify for me: it seemed that you are assuming that people who have fallen away from christianity must have never truly had an experience with god or truly been ‘born again’; Those that are no longer “believers” must have never really “believed” in the first place.

    If I am understand you correctly, it seems like a a false assumption for many reasons, but what really bugs me is that it creates a hierarchy of “true believes” and (for lack of a better word) “posers.” It’s a total cop-out perspective because it means one doesn’t need to ask hard questions about why some people decide to leave the faith; one can just assume “well i guess they didn’t really believe in god afterall.”

    The example about “even athiests praying before death” is also faulty — how many athiests do you know, and how do you know they prayed? Either way it would be hard to prove one way or the other since I don’t know how to get in touch with any post-death athiests and find out for sure if they squeezed out one last prayer during the death rattle.

    we know paintings and buildings have creators cuz we’ve seen actual people painting and building them. in fact, i’ve painted and built things. but no one has ever seen a god create the world. i’ve never seen anyone create matter out of nothing. this, too, is a faulty argument.

    I will not go into every detail about this posting, and I hope I don’t seem offensive. I suppose I am just tired of the way that some people seem to force their “certainty” on others and almost guilt trip them about their decision to not be a part of christianity. I am tired of christians assuming there is something “wrong” with people if they decide they dont want to be a part of the whole institution. For example, this whole idea of “are you sure you were born again? maybe you just “thought” you were” — what proof is there for being “born again” anyway — isn’t it pretty much based on thoughts and feelings? It’s not like there’s some “born again master list” you can search for your name.

    Come on people! You can do better than these terribly faulty emotional arguments, right? Although, maybe you can’t because all the analogies and “tough questions” can’t make up for the reality that no one can prove there is a god and no one can prove there isn’t. So we’re stuck fumbling around with these back and forths about it.

    It would be great if we could just honor peoples’ spiritual journeys, where ever it takes them, and stop acting like we *know for sure* our way (or “jesus’ way” - however we interpret it) is the best. That is the most christ-like way of living I can think of.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website