You can't see God in the world

deleted:baalhadadMon 15/10/07 17:59

I was set an interesting essay topic this week. The question was whether God could be proved, and if he could, was this a job for Theology. I decided, as a somewhat convinced atheist, that I would use the reading list, but also balance some of it with Dawkins's God Delusion. I was surprised by my conclusion, from looking at this. I decided that there was no way to see God in the world, and that Theologically speaking, any attempt to build a knowledge of God from anything other revelation is futile and pointless, and I would go as far as saying that it verges on the Blasphemous for a Christian to do so.

However, people talk about the beauty of creation all the time and how it points to God all the time. People, atheists and theists alike, seem to treat God like some scientific-hypothesis, and for me, this was particularly striking when reading both the God Delusion and Swinburne's 'Is there a God?' alongside each other. It suddenly occurred to me that both scholars had missed the point. Swinburne pretends to be able to define God, while Dawkins does the same, and then they debate about the likelihood of creation to be caused and sustained by a God. However, this, and this was an epiphany for me, assumes an understanding of creation which neither the Scientist, nor the Religious, can really claim to have. When Paley used his watch analogy, he missed the point - the Universe, in its totality, cannot be seen a machine, it cannot be seen as anything. The totality of everything is completely and utterly incomprehensible.

Expanding on this idea of the incomprehensibility of creation, this is not to say that science cannot explain how we have come to be. It most certainly can. However, neither theology nor science are capable of answering the ultimate question of what, if anything, is outside of human experience, outside of the phenomenal world, for humans are simply unable to comprehend the real implications of either infinity or nothingness.

I think the bewilderment at the world is what leads to this fantastic sense of wonder when confronted with the incomprehensible. Looking at the ancient religions, you see natural deities - sun worship, moon worship, gods of the sea, fire, storms. In the Bible, it is striking that Yahweh takes over these motifs - he thunders, he rides in the clouds, he takes part in a cataclysmic battle against the sea. I think this reinforces a connection between what is incomprehensible, and this idea of God. This is not a 'God of Gaps' idea - its a reflection on the fact that there has been, and always will be, a sense of bewilderment and wonder whenever one tries to comprehend the facts of our and the universe's existence.

Thus, when considering the facts of the universe, it is surely impossible to build up any idea of a God. That the universe is incomprehensible in its totality means that we can't sit down and claim that apparent design shows the mark of the creator. We can't claim that it requires a source, a first cause - we simply cannot know. In the words of John 1:18, "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."

As I said, it seems to me that any route to God other than Christ verges on the blasphemous. To approach God using human reason seems to me to be impossible. It is to question him, it requires doubt, and anything one says about him is likely to be restrictive. We can use vague terms - Father, Creator, Saviour, without any understanding of what any of them actually mean. We can say what he isn't - he is ineffable, incomprehensible. But we can't say what he is.

Now, let us accept the premises of Christianity, that God's word became incarnate, came down to earth in order that mankind may be saved. It seems to me that the saving knowledge of God cannot be gained in anyway apart from through faith in God's revelation, his word, his Christ. And suddenly, it made me think that all this theological discussion over the past two millenia, Aquinas, Ireneus, and other Natural Theologians, it was all a waste of time.

Then I realised Karl Barth said the same thing earlier in the 20th century and put it much more eloquently than I did. But it was an epiphany for me, the closest I've had to a spiritual experience for many years, even though I don't think I believe in any sort of God.

Just thought I might share.

deleted:staffordtonyMon 15/10/07 18:06

The existance of Gods/Goddesses cannot be proved or disproved so for that reason it is best to keep an open mind!