We went to church today, as usual. Pastor Matthew talked about living in community, authentic community to be precise. The subtext was definitely that the most important community for us was community with God, i.e., a relationship with the divine.
I’m still not sure what that means. How do you have a relationship with someone you can’t see? With someone you can talk at, but they never seem to respond? I mean, I can read about Jesus, but that doesn’t put me in a relationship with him any more than reading about Alexander Hamilton puts me in a relationship. Even if I’m this obsessive Hamiltonian scholar, I may feel like I know Hamilton, and I may know his life backwards and forwards, but it’s still a fairly one-sided affair. Alexander Hamilton doesn’t really reciprocate.
A lot of people who I respect talk about having a relationship with the divine, so I don’t dismiss it out of hand. But when I pray, I don’t get answers, and I don’t believe I ever really have. I don’t get that, either. I mean, God is God, right? If he wants to have a relationship, why doesn’t he engage a little bit. Actually say something, you know? And I don’t mean this subtle stuff, like a vague feeling of divine presence or “he spoke to me… through the Bible!” I mean spoke. If I can talk to god the same way that I can talk on the phone to my brother Racticas, why doesn’t God talk back the way my brother does? Does he not have the ability?
I just don’t understand what people mean by having a relationship with God. Don’t get me wrong- I think it sounds really nice. I just am at a loss to what it actually means.
If God isn’t able to relate to me, or I am not able to relate to God, then we’re really talking about Deism. And I don’t see the point to Deism. Why believe, based on no affirmative evidence whatsoever, in a God that isn’t really interested in interacting with you? You may as well be an open-minded humanist atheist, willing to accept that “there are more things in heaven and earth…” but assuming in general that there’s not such a thing as God, at least not in a way that’s particularly relevant to your day-to-day life.
To untangle that sentence, what difference would it make in my life, between Deism and atheism? If there’s no functional difference, I may as well go with the preponderance of the evidence and assume atheism.
Sailing to Byzantium 
unless the preponderance of evidence is that there is a God and that he is personally involved.
Well, I realize we’re probably just going to disagree with each other on this one, but I really, really don’t think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that there is a God and that he is personally involved. In fact, I see almost no credible evidence whatsoever to indicate that, other than other peoples’ testimonies which are themselves suspect except that I respect those people and thus do not easily dismiss what they say.
In any case, I don’t feel like I have access to any affirmative evidence whatsoever of God’s existence. Just a lot of confirmation bias, arguments from ignorance, and wishful thinking.
And honestly, I’d prefer to believe in God. But that’s all I’ve got, and that’s not a preponderance. I’m not willing to base my life and worldview on what I’d prefer.
yeah, I keep starting a post and then deleting it. I think I’m going to avoid hijacking your blog into a debate on the Kalam Cosmological argument or anything like that.
Suffice to say, I think we both agree. A belief in God and specifically in Christ should not be based on preference or desire. A person should believe in God and trust in Christ because the evidence suggest that it is true. I believe that evidence can include many things from personal experience to scientific discovery to philosophical deduction (and many other things). You’re dissatisfied with any thing other than personal experience, so it doesn’t make any sense for anyone to try to beat you over the head with an apologetic hammer.
And honestly, I think there are many people who are Atheist simply out of preference. A belief in God comes with consequences for a person’s life. Many athesit prefer not to have those consequences and latch onto confirmation bias, arguments from ignorance and wishful thinking just as many believers do.
Hmm. i don’t know about that. I wonder if the “atheists decide to not belive in God so they can have license to be immoral” line isn’t as off the mark as the popular ex-Mormon stereotypes in the LDS church. On the other hand, I think things like confirmation bias, etc. are fairly universal human fallacies. And in this case, I’m not so much accusing other people of making them as I am wary about making them myself.
I honestly feel that the objective evidence for God is insufficient. I don’t think the evidence for God’s nonexistence is conclusive, either, but that’s not actually the point. In the “People v. God” trial going on in my head, the finder of fact (me) has not been presented with enough evidence to tip the scale over to that >50% land of preponderance. Thus, while I certainly don’t deny the existence of God (I’m currently uncomfortable with that assertion), I can’t say that I believe.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind hearing honest objective evidence for God. If there’s something new that I haven’t heard yet, I want to know. I assume without deciding that such an objective argument cannot be made, but I’m open to it.
What I’m not interested in is someone trying to convince me logically that God exists. There’s a fine line between the two, and to me it makes all the difference in the world.
Yes, I know what you mean. I don’t offer that assumption about “why” atheist choose to be atheist as an all around assumption about non-believers.
Saying “atheist don’t want to believe in God so they can be immoral” is on the same par as “believers want somebody to do the thinking for them so that they can feel emotionally secure”. Both statements may be true of some people, but shouldn’t be assumed of all.
I actually just listened to a debate between an Christan and an atheist on CD. I could send you the Christian’s opening and closing remarks as mp3s if you’d like to hear them. He very (very very) quickly goes over the top arguments for the existence of God (and not all of them are philisophical musings), so it’s a good spring board to look deeper into his assertions. I’ll only inflict it upon you if you’re interested.
Sadly the atheist was really over matched. He didn’t do a good job at all. It was boring to listen to even if you’re cheering against him. At the end he practically said, “you should really check out this guy’s church.” I was disappointed there wasn’t a better “contestant” put up in the debate.
kullervo-I have been reading your old posts for about a week now and it is very well written and thoughtful.
I have often wondered how people speak with God. Do they pray and then he gives an intuition? Do they dream about the question they have? And other than some outspoken fundamentalists and preachers that claim God speaks to them, how many people get specific advice from Him?
My personal belief is most people pray and then make a rational decision rather than an impulse decision which is usually the wrong one. So after doing this a few times they think they are getting advice from above when really it is themselves taking the time to make good choices.
Keep up the great posts!
Yeah, I think that’s pretty much all my prayers ever have been. Or worse- I just prayed and “the answer” was what I was leaning toward anyway.