Why do I need God...? - Part II

The last post closed with,

"It all comes back to the initial thought that in order for one to need God there must be some recognized deficiency.  Interesting that religion is one of a very few areas where one can claim that they have no need.  Yet, history has proven otherwise."

To be sure history tells the story of excesses done in the name of religion.  The Christian Crusades (1095-1291) are often touted as such an excess.  It is estimated that some 200,000 to 1.2 million died to include crusaders and other Christians.*  

As well the Christian Crusades are nothing compared to the Muslim Jihad** (630-1094).  While the Christian Crusades sought to liberate, Islamic Jihad sought to conquer and did so north into southern Europe and into the East.  Actual numbers of those killed by Islamic Jihadists is not published. 

Against that backdrop as bad as the Crusades and Jihad were and are, they do not compare to the numbers of death by committed secularists.  Here are four of many that could be cited.  People's Republic of China: 73.2 million died; USSR: 58.6 million died; North Korea: 3.1 million died; and Cambodia: 2.6 million died.  In just those four Communist countries 137.5 million died--all this for a secular ideology.  Then too, remember that the Nazis under Hitler killed 20.9 million.

In the case of secular ideologies, the ideology becomes the authority.  While in the Crusades and Jihad there is external authority in secular ideology, there is no authority external to the individual and the state.  Said another way what the individual and the state choose to do has no consequence beyond the present. 

For those of faith such is not so.  In the case of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others, as divergent as they are, they share one thing.  There is a standard and a consequence beyond the individual and this life. 

"Why do I need God...?" is answered in the observation that in and among people of faith (and there are exceptions) there is a standard by which one is religiously sufficient or insufficient and that standard is external to the individual.  That religious sufficiency (not that a person attains perfection) provides a certain sense of eternal connection and eternal identity missing in secularism.

But...there is more.  Consider the following quote by relational philosopher and psychologist, Kenneth Gergen. 

"With the spread of postmodern consciousness, we see the demise of personal definition, reason, authority....  All intrinsic properties of the human being along with moral worth and personal commitment are lost from view."***

What Kenneth Gergen points out is that when all notions of truth/reality are removed there is a consequence.  This consequence is that some very important factors in one being an "adult" are lost.  Included are...

An intrinsic sense of identity, from within the individual.

An inner notion of one's unique person-hood.

A security born of there being a unfailing external authority/reality.

A sense of moral worth born of living by ethical values.

A confidence from living out personal commitment and duty.  

A connection with something greater that then gives a sense of purpose/mission.

Closing thought:  If for no other reason than a person's sense of well being and purpose, there is a need for a truth/reality which is external to the individual.  Such truth/reality in it most genuine form is linked inextricably to the eternal and the only genuine eternal that has stood the test of man cynic, critic, and time is God.

This is by no means exhaustive but sufficient for one to ponder as to "Why do I need God...?"

__________________________

*Those who project the 1.2 million number may be a bit ambitious as the total earth population at the time was 500 million (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm#population-growth-chart). ALSO for a more balanced historical approach to the Crusades see "The Real History of the Crusades" by Thoma F Madden, PhD, available at http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-real-history-of-the-crusades

**Since Crusade comes from Cross, Jihad will be used as it pertains to Islam.

***Gergen, Kenneth, The Saturated Self (New York:  Basic Books, 1991) pp. 228-29.

Why do I need God...? - Part I

The question posed:  "Why do I need God and why does God need me?"

Contain in the above are two questions.  The following treats to the first of the two.  Later attention will be devoted the second.  Again, it is important to examine the question then look to logical implications and outcomes.

In the last post it was argued that God's existence is outside of the time-matter-energy-space continuum.*  Further that the various aspects of God made available to man are but a small glimpse of the whole.  Said more accurately the qualities of God may be understood to some degree but not exhaustively so.

At this point introduce into the discussion one's presuppositions.  Regarding God any number are available.  For example, there can be the supposition that God is like man and suffers under the same limitations.  Inherent in such is the danger that all that God is and does must fit through the lens  of man's understanding.    More in just a moment.

So then before digging any further into the question may we agree that there is a point at which a person may not fully understand some matter of truth and that is the place at which faith comes into play?  As well may we understand that playing the faith card too early in any argument is not a fair treatment of any question under study?  By the same token, in any discussion, to dismiss faith is to make assumptions which tempt a serious and potentially catastrophic result!

So if we can agree upon those things, then focus upon the first part of the question, "Why do I need God...?"   Interesting the words, "Why do...?"  Those words suggest that there is a quest for reasons.  "What are the reasons?" would be another way of asking. 

Then notice what comes next, "...I need...!" Consider it this way.  What is the basis for any "need?"  Is such not based in a recognized inadequacy, insufficiency, and lack? 

So here is the divide.  If you can picture a fork in a road and at that fork a decision is made.  On one road travels the person who decides and declares, "I have no need of any sort of a god, I am totally adequate and sufficient in matters of religion and life."   On the other travels the person who recognizes his inadequacy and thus has a need for something outside of himself-some sort of a god. 

Then for the person who acknowledges a need for a god as he travels along he comes another divide in the road and thus another decision.  Following one pathway is the person who creates a god he wants.  This god must fit in and be seen through the aforementioned lens of man's understanding.  Of course such a god if morally superior to the person who creates him then it is not by much.

On the other pathway is the person who seeks to know and follow the God who is and who said, "I AM that I AM."  The meaning of those words is, "the self existent One."  The traveler on this road seeks to conform his life to God and thus is willing to acknowledge some things.

First, this person is willing to acknowledge that he is not always adequate for the task at hand, possesses insufficient resources, and is possessed of lack in this and other areas.  Second, this is the person who is willing to seek a God external to his own finiteness.  Third, this is the person who is willing to make the changes necessary to be in relationship with the God who is.

It all comes back to the initial thought that in order for one to need God there must be some recognized deficiency.  Interesting that religion is one of a very few areas where one can claim that they have no need.  Yet, history has proven otherwise.

John Donne (1572-1631) wrote as part of a meditation, "No man is an island."  His writing observes that no one is sufficient enough to not be alone.**   More to follow

---

 * In thinking over the time-matter-space continuum, it occurred to me that I left one out.  It should be time-matter-energy-space continuum.  A change has been entered in the previous blog, "How was God Created?"
**http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/no-man-is-an-island.html

"How was God Created?"

Recently a young man posed that question.  As I pondered the question it seemed that it deserved more than a dismissive answer.  As well, easy answers serve little purpose and thus are not forthcoming in this posting.

The first thing to note is the four basic assumption contained in the question.  They are as follows.  First, the existence of a "how."  Then the existence of a time element in the word "was." Third there is the existence of "God."  Then finally the existence of a creator external to that which was "created."    

The following will deal with the time element for such is integral to the discussion (others will following in subsequent postings).  Time is basic to the existence of physical reality.  It is so ingrained in the fabric of western culture we give it scant thought.  How old is your little girl? How long have you lived here?  All of these questions and others come due to one's ingrained sense of time.  It is as the Ecclesiastes 3:11 states, "...He has also set eternity in their heart...." 

All questions having to do with time, (with the possible exception of theoretical questions) make assumptions that limit.  Among them are assumption having to do with beginnings and endings.  Thus, everything within the time-matter-energy-space continuum is time and matter bracketed.  That is to say, that given enough time, all that is will eventually change states to a lesser more chaotic form (see below).

Not agreeing with these thoughts is the skeptic, Astronomer and Astrophysicist Carl Sagan and his opening words in "Cosmos."  He speculated that, 

"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

Elsewhere he labeled the physical laws as "god" and asked why should he pray to the law of gravity? What Dr. Sagan is asking of the viewer is to believe that the physical Cosmos is the exception to the previously mentioned time and matter bracketing.  This of course is one of the basic assumptions necessary not just for Dr. Sagan's but anyone that assumes a "closed system" model of reality.

What do you suppose Dr. Sagan's responses would be if asked about the existence of timelessness and perfection?  Suggesting that the Cosmos is timelessness is only possible absent imperfection which then leads to a terminus point.  For there to be a terminus, the "...ever will be..." is moved into the category of temporal or subject to time.  The opposite of course is a start point which can again place time into the discussion of existence.

Now consider that perfection is important to the discussion in that with the least amount, even micro-imperfection given enough time a terminus point results.  Of course the Sagan statement is a little hard to accept when one's is asked the simple question, "Is there one example of perfection in the physical world?" 

The answer is "no."  Eventually everything that exists in the physical has an end point.  All things physical left to their own ends will be  depleted of energy (entropy), descend into chaos (of course the evolutionist argues that it is the exception).

Now return to the original question.  If there is a created being then that means that such a being has a beginning.  Since examples of perfection are lacking then such being is subject to such imperfections in time and matter then he or it too must have a terminus point.  Well, then if a temporal god is not possible, then for there to be an eternal God then He must be beyond or outside of the closed time-energy-space continuum.  Most certainly this is difficult to grasp with one's finite intellect. 

Thus if God is beyond the time-energy-space continuum, then He must exist in a state that has no beginning or ending.  Further, if one accepts the imperfection of matter, then for God to exist He must be external to matter.  

Scripture puts it this way, "God is a spirit and those who worship him must do so in spirit and truth." (John 4:24).

 The conclusion of the matter is this...God cannot be a created being.

OBLIVIOUS TO THE DANGER!

IN THE MIDST OF GRAVE DANGER

Imagine driving on a dark and rainy night down an unfamiliar road.  In ever so slight change the puddles on the road begin to merge.  Certainly this is nothing to be concerned about, well not just yet.  Imperceptibly the road is now covered with water but again nothing to be concerned about as the car is responsive and the spray is only slight.

Unbeknown and unobserved in small fractions the water deepens and deepens.  There is danger around every curve as the car becomes less and less responsive and there no longer is spray but a splashing sound—a sound that is now impossible to ignore.   However, now it is too late!

Suddenly and with little warning the car goes out of control, into the ditch, and rolls onto its side.

The moral of the story is this.  The imperceptible change that happens with little or no notice eventually leads to disastrous outcomes.  It then can leave a person questioning, “What happened?” and “Why did I not see that coming?”

Western culture is in dire straits but the changes are often imperceptible and even if notices are dismissed with, "The change is so slight that it is of little importance."  Yet unless something catastrophic happens to change course, there likely is coming a change that will be anything but "of little importance" as it will alter life as those in the West know it or wish it to be.

Consider the following barometric indicators and the attendant question, "In which of the following are things any better than they were ten, five, or even a year ago?"  

Continuing ask this question.  "Is not life in the West in a most dangerous and tenuous place?"

Here is a partial list.

Logic in thought and expression is losing ground at a frightening pace.

Language is anything but consistent and universal. 

Discourse is not the sharing of ideas but now based in the defaming of ideas.

Ethics are lost from view, replaced by one’s opinion which can differ from moment to moment (relative truth).

Respect is demanded from but not accorded to the other.

Rebellion against in lieu of accountability

Disdaining of honest though menial labor.

The secular is emphasized at the expense of the Divine.

Imposed acceptance and even required celebration of racial and ethnic differences

Fracturing of a particular nation’s cultural distinctives

Narcissistic leadership on all levels.

Standards are questioned and most often rejected

 

Honor for authorities such as parents and others is not seen as important.

Pleasure and leisure take precedence over propriety.

 

Intentions are judged as opposed to words and actions

Personal responsibility is abrogated.

Religion is seen as irrelevant or at the least inconvenient.

And the list goes on and on.  Change after change--not for the better, quiet, imperceptible, and yet far reaching in effect.

 

What is that effect?  Among the many that could be cited is this.  The culture that has come to embrace such as has been listed and unless the process is stopped will soon devolve and come to naught.

The second outcome is that those who live according to the traditional values that make any culture great are increasingly relegated to the irrelevant.  As such their influence lessens and lessens with the result that society will unravel at an ever increasing pace.  

Guess I will just have to be irrelevant.

"Ignoring God...But Why?"

How about this idea?  “If I ignore the police officer that lights me up, then he or she will not exist or at least will go away.”  Oh, really?  What kind of thinking is that? 

The arguments against God are not uncommon and in fact are tired old arguments which have been bandied about if not foisted upon mankind over and over again.  The old adage “Repeat a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it…”[1] comes into play.  Over and over again evidence is provided that would seem to militate against there being a God.  It is often presented as new and novel, however it is the same time warned theories over and over again.

Yes, in reality these arguments are just theories--ideas that can neither be proven nor disproved.  However, there is a more serious and fundamental question that most who claim the mantel of “atheist” or at least “agnostic” cannot bring themselves to answer.

Before beginning the discussion of that notion, and as written in a previous blog, no one can conclusively prove the existence of God—No one!  While there is ample if not overwhelming evidence from science, from rationalism, from empiricism, and even existentialism, there is nothing that can be conclusively proven.  The best one can tender is evidence that points one toward there being a God.

What then is one left within this debate?  Simply, one is left with the matter of one’s opinion.  Of course then it is quite obvious that opinions vary widely!  Whatever system of evidence one chooses to accept, whatever philosophical system one acknowledges, or whatever theology one embraces, opinions run the gamut within that system.

What we do know is that presented with evidence one assumes an opinion and every one of those opinions is a matter of choice.  On one hand some make the choice to believe in God.  Meanwhile others choose to not to believe in God.  One must then ask and answer “Why?”  Why do some choose to believe and some choose not to believe?

In a debate at Oxford University, UK Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher Hitchens posited another question with several observations.[2]  This may be the answer to the question just tendered.  Roughly speaking the question was as follows.

Just why is it that the atheist wants there to be no god?  Why do atheists expend great and even illogical effort into this notion?  Why when confronted with questions such as first causes do they resort to the extreme theoretical notions?  Why do men of such intellect as Richard Dawkins suggest alien seeding as the beginning of what would lead to human life on earth?

Does it not seem that for their own reasons these folks will go to any measure to not have to deal with the inconvenience of there being a God—a supreme benevolent adjudicator of justice?  The One to which all are accountable both in this life and the next![3]

Maybe that is it.  These are those who simply believe that by ignoring Him, He will cease to exist or at least go away.  Can they really believe that it is more convenient to ignore the evidence than to tempt the possibility of accountability?  Do they really believe in such things?   

Well then they must believe that by ignoring the police officer who seeks to pull them over for speeding they can hinder and avert their own accountability for breaking the law!

---

[1] This quote is often attributed to Hitler, Goebbels, and has been used by others.

[2] Remarks available at http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=VnIH4gomOqc

[3] Hebrews 9:27-28 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.  NASU