Hey, folks.
I've recently read a discussion posted on my friend's weblog concerning the ever important question of God. My comments could not be posted on that weblog, so I figured I'd post them here, since just about anyone can comment on my site.
Interesting thoughts emerged regarding the possibility of knowing God, and knowing about Him/Her. Is God simply a construct of the human mind? Is there any way of grasping the infinite? Although a Supreme Being is conceivable to us, how can we really know that such thoughts actually correspond to such a reality?
I would have to agree with some Christians that a distinction should be drawn between the epistemic and existential forms of knowing. After all, a large chunk of theology is a reflection on a lived experience. If theories often fail to describe our experiences, how much less can they explain the very Object (viz. God) of those experiences? Yes, I would have to agree that if it is possible to know God at all, then existential knowledge should reign supreme, and that all theorizing should aim towards a more authentic experience with that which is God.
Nevertheless, it is not as simple as one may think. After all, our theories (or doctrines) do shape our experiences. They set limits (not to be taken in a pejorative sense). This is to say that for a Christian, for example, believing in a creation-loving, redeeming, renewing, and suffering God makes all the difference in how one experiences and responds to life; it shapes our journey with that ground of being we call God. Moreover, we ourselves are limited beings. The moment we evoke God or try to define divine attributes, we confine Him/Her to our own thoughts (which is nothing less than missing out on His/Her greatness).
Conversely, not using human categories is to miss out on that special capacity we have to express ourselves on perhaps the most important Object of experience. If being capable of reflecting on one's own existence is not special enough, human beings are blessed with the kind of imagination that enables them to think about the source of their own existence. Therefore, thinking about a wholly unintelligible God seems rather strange. Such an being is hardly qualified to being called loving, as the Christian maintains.
As I've perhaps expressed elsewhere, I believe that another important element in "knowing God" is cultivating a sense of mystery, so central to the various Christian apophatic traditions of old. Leaving room for silence, quiet meditation and immersing oneself in that sometimes uncomfortable place we call unknowing. God, in this sense, can be understood as the greatest open question, an ongoing quest, open to new insights and vexing questions. On the other hand, doing theology (both theoretical and practical) with heavy presuppositions often makes little room for new knowledge. It's like a loved one trying patiently to express herself, but rudely interrupting her with the words, "Save it, hun, I know how you are already!"
Other than that, I don't think there's anything wrong with having an image of God. Christians often like to pride themselves with the claim that God created us in His image, and not the other way around as the "pagans" have. Let's get real. We're bound to construct images of God, we're hardwired that way. Speaking of that which is God cannot be done without human categories. As basic as they are to us, even symbols are human devices (if they should have any semantic value at all).
Nevertheless, as a spiritual thinker, I don't think we're dumb animals; we have the capacity to reflect on the reasons for why we see God the way we do, and if our constructions correspond in any way to that lived experience with Him/Her. And yes, there are definitely many questions that will go unresolved, but considering such things are important, if not inevitable for the reflective thinker. Our beliefs concerning God are human constructions, and will always be so since they're our beliefs. Nevertheless, that's not the same as reducing the reality of God to a mere construct. No science or superstition can solve this puzzle.
7 comments:
Question: And what exactly shelters us from the possibility that "God" himself/herself (an inclusion you make that I am sure would upset many Christians) is nothing more than a symbol?
VYC
Dude,
First and foremost, I must thank you for releasing this great posting! I find your line of inquiry insightful in so far as the questions you compell the reader to ask him or herself. Your inspiration brought to light a few thoughts and questions which I would like to share with you; namely the first section of your posting.
The issue I would like to acknowledge is the question of the human ability or inability to truly acquire a comprehension of He (or She) whom we deem to be infinite. I believe it is important to establish that the finite truly grasping the infinite would be an unreasonable paradox. We must be honest and true to the fact that we, as people, impose a framework which will always lack the "all- encompassing" quality when it comes to discussing God.
Moreover, I believe that you are very right in so far as the human need to create a manner of articulating and attributing characteristics to He whom we call Divine. Doing so is a healthy endeavour which I believe demonstrates our desire to understand life, and ourselves, within a context that attempts to bravely look further than who we are. On the other hand, this presupposition of the existence of God postulates that we arrive at a greater comprehension of ourselves by this brave undertaking. Whether one succeeds at arriving to any comprehension of that which we call God is not central here. It is not as important as the reverence and care we show throughout the entire process. After all, That which is not confined to space and time can never be captured in frames...
Where is Carlo and what have you done with him/her? I'll respond further when I collect my thoughts.
Peace
Jon Mass
Carlo, I appreciate your article but I do have one point of contention being your categories of knowing: “epistemic” and “existential”. I do not believe this is a correct distinction because existentialism is simply a category within Epistemology.
So how do we know God? To answer this question we must define “knowledge”.
I maintain the view found in Plato’s dialogue Theaetetus that “knowledge is true belief that has been given an account of”. For something to count as knowledge it must be true, therefore in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have a good reason for doing so, in other words “have proof”. In applying this notion to God’s existence, some Jewish theologians contend that God “exists” because he “acts”. God exists is the “belief”, he acts is the “proof” thus making the proposition true.
Our knowledge of God and his existence is dependent on God “acting” (the proof). The proof of God is evident in our lives and the lives of others; including the lives of those identified in Scripture who took their “experience” of God and wrote theology, (I say this with the understanding that Scripture is history theologized). Knowing God is not simply experiencing him on a personal level, but also through the experiences of others. This is why I propose that we come to “know” God through Prayer/Meditation, Scripture and Community. Prayer/Meditation allows us to experience God. Scripture teaches us about the experiences of others, and Community/Church is where we come to celebrate those experiences by placing them into a theological framework, be it song, liturgy or sacrament. I am aware that there are holes in my argument, but I’m not a philosophy major, thanks be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jonathan Massimi
To the voice of my conscience,
You raise an interesting question. However framed, I think you are asking whether there is any content to the symbol which we call God, or if it merely represents a human thought of which there is no external referent.
Without digressing from this discussion, I must explain what I mean by "symbol of God." I am using the term the way Tillich does, where the term "God" is but a symbol for God, who is (in principle) much greater. As such, I am avoiding the mistake of trying to contain God-as-God in a mere 3-letter word.
For one, I presuppose God's existence axiomatically as Ground of Being (viz. That From Which All Things Subsist). Thus, God's existence is accepted as the framework by which I approach any discussion regarding reality.
Many philosophers see no use for God in any discussion, and simply shave God off as superfluous. However, I see no reason for this given my concern for the meaning of life, and not simply the events in the world often presupposed as random.
Meaning is the bridge between the external world and us. Whether we're the ones giving meaning to things makes no difference to me. The very fact that we are capable of such creativity is remarkable enough. As such, a symbol is never "merely a symbol" for me.
If God is nothing other than a symbol, the quest itself is something we can't shake off. People will try to appease the itch by either digging within their own psyche or reaching out into outer space.
Some use religious traditions, others use the natural sciences. I can go on, but the fact remains: we're self-aware beings seeking self-transcendence. How can we explain that phenomenon? If you ask me: that which is called God.
Best,
Camardicus
Mass,
Interesting thoughts. I appreciate the comments. I need time to provide a brief and thoughtful response. I'm working on it...
Peace,
Camardicus
Wow! I should call my wife and ask her to bring me Gravol from the pharmacy. Reading you nerds makes my head spin.
Joe
PS: Patriarchal as it may be, the Judeo-Christian God is a "he", not a "she". And lest we misunderstand what I mean here, I don't mean it in HIS ontology. Rather, by means in which the Church believes that HE has relationally revealed HIMSELF to us.
PSS: Praise and peace be upon Prophet Jesus!
Post a Comment