I am an agnostic theist. There, I said it. I am agnostic, as any well reasoned individual must be because I truly do not know if there is a God or not. I certainly hope that there is and believe that there is and that is why I am also a theist, which means that I believe that there exists at least one god (or, if you really want to pin me down, I am a believer in one God but I will not go any further in this article as to my actual religious affiliation since it is not germane to this argument).
Recently, militant atheists have attempted to disprove God (Dawkins, Smith, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, etc.) and condemn religion. These attempts are doomed to failure for the same reasons that the various proofs of God are doomed to failure. God exists outside the system and thus cannot be proven from within it. While it may be possible to disprove a God that intercedes in the physical world at least in the here and now or who has left evidence of such tampering in the past (in the sense that He violates the laws of nature to cause action), it is logically impossible to disprove a God that does not.
Similarly, while it is possible to prove a God that intercedes in the physical world, no such proof has thus far been offered and, if it were offered and accepted, the very act of doing so would destroy faith. Since faith is necessary for the existence of religion, such an action would destroy religion as well.
More to the point, if there is a God (and if He has the attributes that we ascribe to Him), it is highly arrogant of us mere mortals to think that we will ever be able to find such proof at least in the sense that there is no other possible interpretation. Continuing with the assumption that God does exist, God may make Himself known but He has not done so in such a manner as to completely obviate all other possible conclusions. The skeptics will remains regardless of how many times and ways that we ascribe that we have found irrefutable proof.
Irrefutability, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. Yet perhaps this too is all in God's plan (if God exists). The arrogance of man is to believe that God will show himself in such a manner. Yet while individual humans lack perfection and thus will eventually reveal their faults, if God is God as we have come to portray Him, then He has no such faults. As such, he can certainly cover any tracks that might be left to us. Since He is all-knowing and all-powerful, then He knows how to ensure that the Richard Dawkinses of the world will never find the "proof" that they seek.
So why would He do that? Why would He deny to the Richard Dawkinses of the world such a revelation. The answer lies in free will.
If God were to reveal Himself, there would be not only no faith but no free will either. Although free will is, to some extent, an illusion, it is a useful illusion only when there are those who do not believe. Since God knows what has happened and what will happen and since He is not bound by time, He knows what we will do in the future but since we are bound by time and do not know what will happen (or even completely what has happened), we make decisions using our free will that leads to our predestination.
Let me say that again: we make decisions using our free will that leads to our predestination.
We often think that these two concepts are polar opposites when, in fact, they are the logical outcome of all that exists. Our decision-making process is always and absolutely to do that which brings us what we believe at the time to be the course of actions that we most prefer to take. No one (except for those who like to be miserable) wakes up in the morning saying, "Gee, I want to mess up my life and make myself miserable. What can I do to mess up my life and make myself miserable?" Of course, in the case of those who like being miserable, well, since they like it, then they too make decisions that they most prefer to take!
Does this mean that we act always in ways that are in our best interests or that will lead to the conclusions that we desire? Of course not. People engage in all sorts of highly destructive behavior. Yet they engage in this behavior because they are trying to reach a result that they believe they will prefer (at the time of making the decision) over all other possible results that can foresee with other possible actions. Now that result might be very short-term (as in the person who wants to experience the "thrill" of a near-death action that could very possibly end their life) but it is still something that they prefer. Even the person who kills himself or herself has revealed a preference for death over the alternative.
By revealing Himself as God, God would take away this fiction. We would no longer be "free" to engage in our behavior because we would know that our lives are not our own. We would no longer have free will because we would be led in the course of our existence to a foregone conclusion. Thus, God requires faith, not because God needs it but because faith is fundamental to our ability to practice free will.
No comments:
Post a Comment