Several powerful forms of reasoning for the existence of God take an indirect approach. C.S. Lewis once penned in one of his writings that God is much like the sun... We cannot look directly at God, but without Him we could not see anything else. The underlying principle behind Lewis' words begins with this: Everyone at some point or other eventually confronts two fundamental questions:
1) Is there a God?
2) What is His nature?
Whether the effort to arrive at a resolution is made formally or informally, every individual will make their most important decisions in life as though there is a God or there's not (However, this is more autobiographical in nature and tells us nothing of whether or not the philosophy claimed corresponds with reality. For our purposes, we'll be examining the logical outworkings of our choices at this stage of development).
Acknowledging one might well take issue with the assumption smuggled in (2), let me assure the reader my traditional gender-specific reference is made purely for argument's sake, and that the answer to even that conflict falls within the scope of the question: Is it within God's nature that we should call God a "He"? Yet the broader issue the question seeks to elicit is: based on our response, how then should we align our lives accordingly?
And though our conclusions to those two questions will form the basis for every important decision we make in life, our choices here have an even more profound effect --They delineate what we will allow to qualify as reliable "knowledge".
There are varying theories of "knowledge". And it is precisely for this reason why I believe many atheists, agnostics, and theists have a difficult time communicating with one another.... not necessarily because neither have done their homework, rather they haven't agreed which homework is worth doing. Lewis' words underscore a chief characteristic of the Christian worldview: God is the very point of reference from which all else is accounted for, apart from which life reduces to one big question mark. The atheist however, must pull himself by his metaphysical bootstraps and decide his own destiny, draw his own boundaries, conjure up a meaning for life and suffering, and then perhaps try to gain an enduring sense of purpose from everyday living. In this light, the rejection of God appears about as liberating as an abandonment o'er the wastelands of fragmentary ruin and insignificance. There's no ultimate authority to turn to for answers and justice anymore. When prodded to turn from God in the midst of suffering, G.K. Chesterton asked the pivotal question: "Fine... but in heaven's name, to what??"
From this perspective, we might well argue that for the Christian, although the peripheral questions haven't been given an immediate answer, all the root ones have been addressed. Yet, the skeptic seems to be in a different battle altogether, for while all the periphery impulses have been indulged, the core of what really matters remains a big mystery. Perhaps this is precisely why many attempts at finding this universal meaning have often been plagued by never-ending battles with nihilism. Nihilism is much like a philosophical cancer poisoning the mind of a thinker to conclude that "Life is meaningless", and as such any "meaning" we try to confer to life is equally meaningless. As with the Kurt Cobains of our generation, misery then becomes not just a moment, but a way of life. So what's that to say of the problem of death? "What's preventing me from suicide," as Jean Paul Sartre once pondered. Albert Camus echoed the same sentiment.
Centuries' worth of heavyweight thinking in our quest for Godless meaning --through and beyond the enlightenment-- have only brought us to a nihilistic age... an age where rather than admit defeat, the willful skeptic would instead champion relativism in Marxist-like bravado as though it were some kind of marvelous achievement. Such unyielding obstinance brings a tyranny all its own. In our search for autonomy, freedom is lost at the altar of determinism. Mired in pitiless incongruence, the state of philosophical order remains in shambles.
Deep-rooted questions of meaning in our time are now dismissed as expressions of weakness... And the faithful are derided as lesser mortals falling prey to that weakness. The strong would move beyond any primitive notions of some imaginary God-parent taking care of humanity despite the massive amount of suffering present in our world. We would pull ourselves by sheer volition and fabricate our own purpose, our own meaning, and never dare think of what will become of us in the hereafter. After all, such lower-level questioning is reflective of a genetic inferiority destined to perish with the dinosaurs; but until then, secular society "puts up with" the masses living under the intoxication of superstitious belief. One day, the sobering realization of the death of God will become agonizingly clear in cataclysmic epiphany... and for a time, society will descend into madness and bloodshed. But such things must come if we are to liberate ourselves from the shackles of religion and finally build a utopian society where man can finally become his own God, ruler of his universe.
Such were the prognostications of Fredreich Nietzsche, German philosopher of the nineteenth century, and extremely acidic in his disposition against Christendom. A giant among atheists, this man was perhaps one of the more honest and insightful individuals on the consequential effects of God's eviction from the moral consciousness of an entire people. So what happens when an entire generation is raised in a culture where the very atmosphere is tangible with this cloud of pessimism? Arrogantly, many are content to bloody themselves against the goads of life, determined to find their own way, never turning towards Transcendence for the answer... and why? Out of a sheer antipathy for the supernatural? What an awesome responsibility! To play God in our lives and in someone else's life out of sheer arrogant pride -- doesn't that strike us in the least bit as terrifying? When life is meaningless, then any behavior from that foundation of reality is equally meaningless and inconsequential. What moral obligation then do we have to be kind or even tolerant of our neighbor if life has no purpose? In a world bereft of any such thing as a way "things ought to be", can we really trust ourselves and one another to live peaceably?
One may interject and say, “These are all theories, aren't they?" No sir. Nietzsche’s prognostications were correct.... In fact, by some accounts, more blood has indeed been spilled in the 20th century alone than the other nineteen put together; the result of a will that would not bend a knee to Christ's teachings. C.S. Lewis once cogently remarked that in the end, either we will bend our knee in reverence and say, "Thy will be done," or God will turn to us and declare, "Alright then... Your will be done!"
Let me summarize with some final thoughts...
Firstly, this is an all-important question, and so to hide behind a mask of facetiousness and laughter is to miss the gravity of the matter. Too often people resort to mockery as a mind-numbing shield from having to face the more glaring questions stalking our existence. I trust, dear reader, you are not one of them....
Secondly, when we broach the issues at hand, we do so from the basis of our presuppositions. Some forms of argumentation will be very convincing to one set of individuals because it comports with how their rules of reasoning dictates one comes to reliable knowledge. However, to the opposing encampment, there is a sense that an incomplete or otherwise false premise has led to an incomplete or false conclusion. It is often helpful then to first begin by pointing out how popular methods of reasoning between groups have been ineffective, and have brought us to many inexorable points of arbitrariness. We might begin by asking of the skeptic just what qualifies as “evidence”?
Lastly, a concession that none of this necessarily constitutes God's existence by way of pure reason. It does, however provide some insight into the preliminary reasons why many come to trust God for their answers. All too often this is hastily dismissed as an indication of gullibility or irrational emotionalism -- a sign of a weak temperament. However, these are matters every worldview must deal with, and dismissing them as non-important isn’t really an explanation... that's just explaining away. Apprehending the struggles of life warrants a style of reasoning not bound by the rigors of cold logic. Sheer unaided reason alone cannot lead one to an ultimate understanding of reality anymore than a computer can explain love, truth, or beauty. One must go beyond that and take into account the deeper questions stalking each individual where they are. It is no wonder that many life-shaping philosophies in our youth-culture have been molded and refined --not by the famous intellectual heavyweights of years gone by-- but by popular artists! And lets face it, they tend to be more honest in their lyrics about their struggles than you and I are with one another when delving into logical discourse. As one Scottish philosopher once quipped:
“Let me write the songs of a nation, and I don't care who writes its laws!"
There is a real existential rub behind the questions at hand...
Therein lies a key to finding the answers.
Lets not run from that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment