God [if God exists] can communicate with us any damn way God pleases [that is, through the Bible, the Quran..., the angelic kindness of a stranger...]This morning as I was about to enter the allergy clinic for my bimonthly antigen injection, a vibrant, dark-skinned young nurse called out to me from down the hall, "Hi! What's your name?"
"[Moristotle]...What's yours?"
"Eloise!"
We approached, took each other's hand, and shook firmly, smiling at each other with a kind of recognition. I continued to hold her hand while saying, "Something seems to have happened to you this morning. Did you have an angelic visitation, or perhaps a revelation from God directly?"
Eloise was now beaming even more brightly. "I had a great session this morning with my prayer partner."
"Aha!" I said. "Good on you!"
This proof that indeed "something had happened" to this young stranger relieved me of the possible impertinence of my opening remarks to her. And it seemed that something had just happened to me too. A few minutes later, as I was sitting in a clinic waiting room, my muse began whispering to me, rather urgently. I quickly found a piece of paper and borrowed a pencil. I took some dictation:
God is the answer to certain questions we ask:More things to think on. Thank you, my muse.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"How can we identify questions to which God is the answer? Or, What are the criteria for such questions?
"How is it possible that we ask and thereby receive?"
"Why does the sun shine on the just and the unjust alike?"
"Why are innocent animals devoured in the mechanism of the food chain?"
Etc., etc.
What if such a question has no answer; does that mean there is no God?
Some of these questions may be answerable by science. If they can be, are they therefore disqualified? Or, Is "can't be answered by science" one of the criteria? If so, then why? [My muse seemed to be reflecting Maliha's comment of yesterday:
I always wondered why there was such a disconnect between Science and Religion. Why does it have to be either Science OR God? I...understand God more through Science (precision, beauty, perfection, symmetry, etc.). And Science has an added layer of meaning when looking at it through the prism of a gnostic.For more of Maliha's comment, plus previous whisperings from my muse, see yesterday's "Open Letter to Maliha."]
Peace,
ReplyDeleteOn the comment about revelation, I wanted to touch on that before..and I am glad you bring it up again.
Just because one may choose to believe in a path, through the Bible, Quran,etc. Doesn't necessarily mean that Revelation is confined to just that one source.
Nature talks to me, beauty in all kinds and forms elusive and beckoning, tend to show glimpses of the Unknowable to me..not in any rational sense, but just in the way the soul is moved and weighed down.
Deep analysis on the questions/answers...I have to think about that for a minute or longer :)
PS:
ReplyDeleteJust a continuation on the revelation thought...
I view the Quran (and all revelation) as a starting point, a praxis on viewing the world and interacting with it...
To find that personal meaning, to guide my conduct to universal principles of fairness, truth, justice...those are all highly individual quests.
No two believers are the same even when they claim to be of the same religion. Everyone's path is a gradual unfolding of the self in relation to the higher Being (whatever you want to call it)
but it's all requires work/effort/ searching on our sides. Alas too many of us are too comfortable in the grips of apathy and consumerism to worry about it all...but we are paying the price, aren't we?
Very well said, Maliha. I believe there are as many paths leading to God as there are people; everyone has to find his own path. Everyone has to travel the path at his own rate, in his own time, in his own way. We can shine a light on the path for him, but we can't make him see it. He must open his own eyes.
ReplyDeleteRight on, Southern Writer! I immediately recognized in Maliha someone most akin to yourself, who said in taking my "religion survey":
ReplyDelete"...I'm more spiritual than religious. I like some things from the Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian faiths, but not all of it from any of them. I dislike organized religion in general...I've studied most of the religions of the world and base my opinions on what I've learned. Buddhists and Hindus seem to be more passive, less 'in your face' about their beliefs. They don't go around knocking on your door, or corner you at cocktail parties and try to convert you to their way. Religion, or lack thereof, is a personal choice which should be private and respected. God and I are okay with each other, and I don't need anyone else's interference in that."
Peace Southern Writer,
ReplyDeleteThank you and I agree. Moristotle, she is both an aquarian and a writer, I already think we are twin souls...going over to browser your blog, Southern writer :)
I know I don't comment often; though, I do read each post--often with its comments.
ReplyDeleteI find your chronicle here of your continuing self-discovery both interesting and enlightening--especially in light of how easily you asked Eloise if she had an angelic visitation or direct intervention from God.
If you wish, I will go back and take your survey, thought what I really want to comment on is the Religion (or God) Vs Science.
I believe that God often (mostly even) operates within the physical rules of this universe, which I believe God created (the universe and the rules). I also believe that if God feels it necessary, God can circumvent those rules.
This puts science in an awkward position, for religion can say--rightfully, I think--God can do anything (including give "False" readings on carbon dating) therefore you can't prove God doesn't exist. Of course, Sciences problem with this argument--also correct--is that starting from that basis you can prove nothing, so why try. So, they have gone to the other extreme and started with the basis that there is no God (because it is too convenient to fill the gaps in knowledge with God and never learn anything).
But why does God need to be discounted and does discounting God keep us from making more important discoveries? Would it not be just as easy to start with the premise that God exists, now let us figure out how he made the universe work?
I may have gotten side-tracked and strayed from the point, but you can always seek clarification here or on my blog.
Victor! My spontaneity with Eloise was so smooth, so natural, I simply had no doubt whatsoever that I was "in touch with something emanating from her," for lack of a better way of putting it at this moment. Though momentarily startled by this stranger's greeting (she was about twenty feet away, and I was about to knock on the door of the room where the allergy nurses administer injections, and I'd never seen Eloise in there before), I shifted seamlessly into my "and what's your name?" and taking her hand and not letting go of it while I asked my theoretically possibly impertinent question. It was one of those moments.
ReplyDeleteYour idea that God created the rules and has the power to circumvent them at God's will provides a nifty way of making room for miracles in the orderly universe. (A note on my not using a pronoun for God: I don't like referring to God as "He." If I had to use a pronoun, I'd probably more often than not use "She," for I experienced Youie—see my "Youie Summer" post—as feminine, and the rest of the time I would probably use "It.")
I agree that science, being what it is, has to operate as though such miracles don't happen, but I believe that those scientists who also happen to be Christians (or believers of some other religious creed) have sophisticated ways of accounting for miracles within science. I say "I believe" that, for I'm not sure of it, and I certainly can't offer any evidence at this moment. It was just my impression from reading a recent debate (in Newsweek, I think) between Richard Dawkins (a self-proclaimed atheist) and another scientist (a Christian).
I'm reminded of a thrilling book, by a theologian (Matthew Fox) and a scientist (Rupert Sheldrake), titled The Physics of Angels: Exploring the Realm Where Science and Spirit Meet. Another provocative book in this "genre" is Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics, and I have another in that line on a shelf at home, but I can't think of its title or its author at the moment.
I like your "Would it not be just as easy to start with the premise that God exists, now let us figure out how he made the universe work?" Tom Sheepandgoats recently reminded me that Sir Isaac Newton seems to have spent a good deal more time thinking and writing about God than he did about gravity, etc. The "God hypothesis" certainly didn't seem to impede Sir Isaac!
Of course, on my view, to assume that "God exists" is vacuous, in that we don't know what "God" is, which is precisely my problem with "believing in God." As I said in my post of Sunday ("Open Letter to Maliha on Agnosticism"), "I do believe in...Something. [But I] just [don't] know what [I]t is...."
I don't think you got "side-tracked and strayed from the point" at all! Thanks for your reflections!
Moristotle, I don't use pronouns for God either. I do not understand the assertion that God is either gender--I find it easier to believe that God is both genders (Though God being neither gender is most compatible with my beliefs).
ReplyDeleteAs for what is God? I could fill pages with what I believe. I don't think it is possible for me to "Know" anything except what I believe (And yet, I do not consider myself an agnostic).
One thing seems sure, Victor, about God's being "The Great Unknown," is that He/She/It is a blank slate for us to write our longings on. If that's more or less ALL God is, it's still a useful "role" for God to play. But our longing, of course, is that God is MORE than simply our projections on a blank screen. Surely this is THE PARADOX of our situation as conscious beings.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, the only way to know the truth of God would be to BE God. We simply cannot know from our perspective. I believe in God, but I know nothing for sure.
ReplyDeleteSlight tangent from this: You brought up Jesus earlier. I believe not only that Jesus was the son of God, but that he was also God (or part of God). If for the sake of argument both my above premise and this on are correct, then Jesus was in a position to Know if there was a God (there is a point here I swear). This is the reason the Christians say that they not only know that there is a God, but they actually know God--In other words, they know God by association.
Yes, it is true that all of that rests on the divinity of Jesus, but I have a hard time discounting that--even though I know that I do not really know.
Let me make sure I understand what you're saying:
ReplyDeleteIf (1) God exists and (2) Jesus was the son of God (maybe this is all you need to assume), then (3) Jesus KNEW that God existed (exists). Is that a fair way of stating it? Sounds logical to me. Cool.
I don't think it follows, though, that (therefore) Christians know that God exists OR that it follows that they KNOW God. For your #1 and #2 are only premises, not statements known to be facts. Even if we grant #1 as a fact (and I do believe that something we call "God" exists), we continue to have the problem with #2. Does that sound logical to you?
I am starting to return to a view I had years ago, that people have a "higher consciousness" by which they can get occasional glimmers of "the divine." I used to think that Jesus, if not the "son of God," could have been someone with a very heightened "higher consciousness," whereby his statements about "the kingdom within" (and even about "the father in heaven"--I believe that's a phrase used in the Gospels) could have been expressions of his "glimmers." I personally prefer that interpretation to the traditional one that Jesus was, literally, the son of God (in some way that you and I are not.)
Hey! I meant to write you another comment anyway. Look at this neat thing I read today in a review of a biography of Descartes (a book of the same title by A.C. Grayling). The reviewer, Simon Blackburn, a professor of philosophy and colleague of the author at Cambridge University, is discussing Descartes's attempts to set science on a solid footing."...He wanted to know not just how events do fall out as they do, but why they have to fall out as they do, why it stands to reason that the laws of nature have to be as they are. And he thought that by finding that out he would, quite literally, be reading the mind of God." [emphasis mine] I immediately thought of you.
That's a grand concept, and I suspect that there are religious scientists today who share it. I'm inclined to want to share it too. I like it very much.
Victor, in reading your last comment again this morning, its "the only way to know the truth of God would be to BE God," I'm reminded of another notion I've had (and whose appeal is coming back to me): that all of creation is in a sense...part of God. I like someone's notion that God created conscious creatures in order to experience creation through those billions of eyes and other senses.
ReplyDeleteIf something like this is true, then we do know [something of] God, but, not recognizing that to be true, we are commonly oblivious to it. Maybe great poets like Muhammad, Rumi, Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, Rainer Maria Rilke,...did recognize it and that is how they wrote poems that can speak to the soul and arouse us to exult in our partaking of God?
Moristotle,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the lag. I have been reading articles and news reports about the IPCC's ruling for days now. When I've stopped reading, I haven't wanted to look at blogs or even attempt to write something for mine. I will rectify that tonight.
In response to your last two comments:
You followed me correctly with Jesus knowing God. But you took a step where I took a leap.
What I meant is that Christians would call both of my first two points facts (pointing out that whether a fact is popular--or even generally known--or not is irrelevant to its status as a fact).
And they believe that they have a personal relationship with Jesus as one of his followers (through His Word) and therefore know him (and know God by association through Jesus).
On Descartes: That is indeed a grand concept; though I believe the mind of God is too complex for a simple Human to truly understand.
Not sure what I think about the idea that we are part of God. No--I take that back. As honored as I would be to be part of God, I am unworthy. I was made in his image, but not from his substance--assuming of course that God can be said to have substance.
Victor, I'm glad that you seem to be feeling much better. (You had been unwell.)
ReplyDeleteAh, okay,if it were a fact that God exists, that Jesus was the Son of God (and in a sense is God), and that Christians know Jesus, then I guess it would be fair to say that Christians know God (if only through some sort of mystical association).
But it takes more for something to be a fact than for someone to believe it. There are epistemological criteria that must be met. You rightly point out that "whether a fact is popular—or even generally known—or not is irrelevant to its status as a fact." That is, for example, a lot of Christians believing in your premises doesn't make them true. Huge numbers of people have believed things that were later known to be untrue. Hence the title of the book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles MacKay (first published in 1841), although the premises in questions may be things that can never be known to be true or untrue. That, I think, is what faith is supposed to be for, to take up the slack.
When you originally put your argument, you said, "If for the sake of argument both my above premise and this one are correct," so I thought you understood that you couldn't just promote those two beliefs to the status of fact.
Am I missing something?
No, you are right; I cannot promote those two beliefs to the status of fact. That wasn't what I was trying for. I see where I went wrong in my explaination, thanks to your comment about Faith. Christians have faith that Jesus's divinity (and the existence of God) are facts. If you reread everything I wrote in that light it might make more sense--I am not sure, while I have healed from my first ailment I now have a cold and am having difficulty thinking.
ReplyDeleteVictor, thinking is such a challenge, it is hard to not have difficulty doing it!
ReplyDeleteGood on you, to overrunning cup!