The Reality of God

Otherground
1

I thought this set of passages from the book The Mountain of Silence, about E. Orthodox spirituality, was a pretty interesting take on the limits of philosophy and apologetics to "prove" the existence of God to yourself and others.  When you think about all the non-believers who want some tangible proof of God these passages basically point to the idea that most of their criteria for proof will never work.

"You mentioned in your talk that Christians are misguided to assume that Christ taught that we should be unquestioning believers; that it was a mistake to believe that we should exert no effort in searching for evidence of the reality of God. What did you mean exactly?"

"Oh yes, now I recall. That would be a gross misunderstanding. In fact, Christ urged us to investigate the scriptures, to investigate, that is, God," Father Maximos responded as he remembered to buckle up.

"God loves, you see, to be investigated by us humans."

"So," I continued while keeping my eyes firmly on the road, "when Christians recite the Creed, that does not imply that we should accept God's existence blindly without testing whether in fact God is a reality or an illusion."

"That is absolutely true. It would be foolish to do so."

"For an academic like myself your words are very comforting. But the immediate question that comes to my mind," I continued, "is that if God indeed urges us to be inquisitive, how are we then supposed to conduct our research? Are we to turn to science, to philosophy, or to theology as our starting point?"

............................

2

"Let's make things simple. Let's assume that we wish to investigate a natural phenomenon. As you very well know, in order to do so we need to employ the appropriate scientific methods. If we wish, for example, to study the galaxies, we need powerful telescopes and other such instruments. If we wish to examine the physical health of our hearts, then we need a stethoscope. Everything must be explored through a method appropriate to the subject under investigation. If we, therefore, wish to explore and get to know God, it would be a gross error to do so through our senses or with telescopes, seeking Him out in outer space. That would be utterly naive, don't you think?"


"Yes, if you put it this way," I replied. "Can we then conclude that for modern, rational human beings, metaphysical philosophy like that of Plato and Aristotle or rational theology is the appropriate method?" As I raised the question I thought I knew what Father Maximos's answer would be.


"It would be equally foolish and naive to seek God with our logic and intellect. But we have talked about this before, have we not?"


I nodded as Father Maximos continued. "Consider it axiomatic that God cannot be investigated through such approaches."


...................................................


"Yes. That's what the mystics have been saying time and again. That God cannot be talked about but must be experienced. But what does that mean? Does it mean that God cannot be studied?"


"No. We can and must study God, and we can reach God and get to know Him."


"But how?" I persisted.



Father Maximos paused for a few seconds. "Christ Himself revealed to us the method. He told us that not only are we capable of exploring God but we can also live with Him, become one with Him. And the organ by which we can achieve that is neither our senses nor our logic but our hearts."



Father Maximos reminded me while I strained my eyes on the narrow road that according to the tradition of the holy elders, a person's existential foundation is the heart. In addition to being the indispensable physical organ that keeps the body alive, he claimed, the heart is also the center of our psychonoetic powers, the center of our beingness, of our personhood. It is therefore through the heart that God reveals Himself to humanity. This is what the holy elders have taught throughout the ages, that God speaks to human beings only through the heart, the optical organ through which one can experience the vision of God. Therefore, those who yearn to see God cannot possibly do so through other means such as by reading Plato and Aristotle or by doing science. Great as their philosophy might be, it is not the way to God. It is only the cleanliness and purity of the heart that can lead to the contemplation and vision of God.



.....................................................

3

Father Maximos went on after I shifted to second gear, "we try in reality to move from an intellectual faith in God to the actual vision of God. Faith becomes Love itself. The Creed actually means 'I live in a union of love with God.' This is the path of the saints. Only then can we say that we are true Christians. This is the kind of faith that the saints possess as direct experience. Consequently they are unafraid of death, of war, of illness, or anything else of this world. They are beyond all worldly ambition, of money, fame, power, safety, and the like. Such persons transcend the idea of God and enter into the experience of God."

"But how many people can really know God that way?" I complained.

"Well, as long as we do not know God experientially then we should at least realize that we are simply ideological believers," Father Maximos replied dryly. "The ideal and ultimate form of true faith means having direct experience of God as a living reality."

I went on to mention that experiencing God may be as "simple" as seeing God in the beauty and complexity of nature. Father Maximos agreed but pointed out, however, that the experience of God is something much more profound than that, impossible to pin down with words or poetical constructions.

"If this is true," I reasoned, "then the Creed within the Christian tradition does not mean what most people assume to be its message, that is, a blind faith in the idea of God."

"That's a popular fallacy with all its disastrous consequences. True faith means I live with God, I am one with God. I have come to know God and therefore I know that He truly Is. God lives inside me and is victorious over death and I move forward with God. The entire methodology of the authentic Christian mystical tradition as articulated by the saints is to reach that stage where we become conscious of the reality of God within ourselves. Until we reach that point we simply remain stranded within the domain of ideas and not within the essence of Christian spirituality which is the direct communion with God."

4

I hope rooster reads this one.

5

My "heart" tells me there is no God.

My deepest moral intuitions tell me that, if the Creator Being described in the bible were real, He would be evil.

Now what?

Prof.

6

Prof,

If you accept the idea that the heart as "organ by which you see God" is real you still have to deal with the idea of whether or not the organ is functioning correctly. 

Implicit to your statement is the idea that your intellect and heart are 100% trustworthy but as you know a lot of Christian thought at least points to the idea that the machine of self is broken down and not entirely to be trusted. 

What I am suggesting is the idea that you can't experience God until your heart is on the mend and you can't put your heart on the mend unless you take the first steps of repentance to put it on the mend.  Part of the sickness is that the sickness makes you think you are not really sick.

7

---"If you accept the idea that the heart as "organ by which you see God" is real you still have to deal with the idea of whether or not the organ is functioning correctly. "

Well, of course I don't really accept the premise. The whole play on the word "heart" was complete mush, in my opinion.

"Heartless" atheist that I am :-D

But I went on the idea that "heart" was being equated to something like "emotions/feelings/intuition," which is why I placed it in quotes.

---"Implicit to your statement is the idea that your intellect and heart are 100% trustworthy..."

No it's not. Playing along, I merely reported on my intuitions. However, implicit in the story is that our intuitions are trustworthy. If so, what happens when those intuitions do not support Christian claims? If intuition is not in fact trustworthy, then, Huston, we've got a problem with that story.

(Not to mention that, apparently, God has a hard time speaking to people through their "heart" in any coherent manner, given how many competing versions there are of what God is, and what it wants).

---"but as you know a lot of Christian thought at least points to the idea that the machine of self is broken down and not entirely to be trusted. "

Yep. Which throws a major wrench in the whole deal.

BTW, when the author writes this:

"True faith means I live with God, I am one with God. I have come to know God and therefore I know that He truly Is. ....The entire methodology of the authentic Christian mystical tradition as articulated by the saints is to reach that stage where we become conscious of the reality of God within ourselves."

He makes the mistake of confusing "faith" with "knowledge." If you know God exists, then you have knowledge not faith. If you are conscious of a reality (God) then you have knowledge not faith.

Faith is not good enough for the author. But it's a feature entrenched in his religion. It appears to make him nervous. So he wants to re-define faith until it is synonymous with knowledge. In doing so, he's thrown away faith.

Prof.

8

Prof,

Heart is not an easy word to define and I don't think it means the same thing in Christian thought as it does in popular culture (intuition, feeling, etc.) so I am not pretending like I can just define that perfectly.  I think a person could spend a long time studying the concept. 

I realize that when you are critiquing things written you are just playing along but if you are testing something out you have to suspend your disbelief across the board, not just selectively.  For instance, I perceive that some atheists suspend their disbelief long enough to try out what kind of God the OT God is but they measure him like they would a mere man in terms of how they conceive of him.  I think this is dishonest since you can't judge God by human standards like that.  I think it is fair to expect a person to suspend their disbelief equally or not at all.

9

Prof,

I think you are using definition 2 while he is using definition 1.  You can have a faith based on experience as opposed to faith only based on ideological consent. 

Main Entry: 1faith    Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: primarystressfamacrth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \-amacrths also -amacrthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, fey, from Old French feid (d probably pronounced \th\), fei, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : the act or state of wholeheartedly and steadfastly believing in the existence, power, and benevolence of a supreme being, of having confidence in his providential care, and of being loyal to his will as revealed or believed in : belief and trust in and loyalty to God <people earnestly prayed in the ages of faith ... to be delivered from sudden death -- J.A.Pike> <lost his faith at an early age> b (1) : an act or attitude of intellectual assent to the traditional doctrines of one's religion : orthodox religious belief (2) : a decision of an individual entrusting his life to God's transforming care in response to an experience of God's mercy c among Roman Catholic theologians : a supernatural virtue by which one believes on the authority of God himself all that God has revealed or proposes through the Church for belief
2 a (1) : firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof <for the scientist faith can be no virtue, because it is inconsistent with the resolution to accept the fact as supreme -- P.W.Bridgman> <clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return> (2) : uncritical grounds for belief -- used chiefly in the phrase on faith <you will have to accept my statements on faith> b : CONFIDENCE; especially : firm or unquestioning trust or confidence in the value, power, or efficacy of something <have faith in prayer> <faith in his medical skill> <the faith on which science rests, the faith in the value of truth seeking -- H.T.Muller>
3 a : an assurance, promise, or pledge of fidelity, loyalty, or performance <gave his faith that he would come on the appointed day> -- often used in the phrases to keep faith or to break faith <to have hitchhiked would have been breaking faith, for all who use the country's youth hostels are honor bound to reach them under their own power -- H.V.Morton> b : fidelity to one's promises : allegiance to a duty or a person : sincerity or honesty of intentions : LOYALTY -- often used with the qualifiers good or bad to specify a state of mind of one trying to be honest and faithful <observed perfect good faith and strictly fulfilled their engagements -- Marjory S. Douglas> or of one trying to deceive, mislead, or defraud <accused him of bad faith>
4 obsolete : AUTHORITY, CREDIT, CREDIBILITY
5 : something that is believed or adhered to especially with strong conviction: as a (1) : a system of religious beliefs : RELIGION <an individual of the Jewish faith> (2) : the body of believers : an organized church or denomination <a movement supported by all the great faiths> b : the cherished values, ideals, or beliefs of an individual or people : WELTANSCHAUUNG, CREED, CREDO <a free world which is strong in its faith and in its material progress -- Dean Acheson> c : the fundamental tenets, views, or beliefs of an individual or group on a particular subject or in a particular field <a profession of literary faith> <I state my own faith at once ... organic union under the Crown is vital -- R.G.Menzies> <she visits the prisoners of her own political faith -- Katharine A. Porter>
6 often capitalized : the true religion from the point of view of the speaker -- usually used with the <the king, temporal head of the faith>

10


As we continued our conversation on how to know God, Father Maximos claimed that whatever existential angst human beings may suffer from comes to an end once God manifests Himself in their hearts. Any doubts, questions, philosophical dilemmas, and puzzlement about God's existence that are "natural to the fallen state" simply evaporate with such direct contact. Fortunately, he said, the tradition of the saints survived through the centuries, showing us the method and the way to know God. The saints provided us with the tools to purify the heart from its illnesses so that it can experience the vision of God and attain its ultimate therapy.



After the split of humans from God, Father Maximos said, after the Fall, the heart was invaded by illnesses, the real meaning of original sin. We as human beings, by virtue of our humanity, carry as our inheritance these illnesses that are an integral part of our human condition. He then pointed out that the Christian Church, the Ecclesia, must function and be seen as a spiritual hospital for curing the maladies of the heart that obstruct our vision of God. And the Ecclesia has as a proof of its therapeutic efficacy the experience and the life of saints, those human beings who have, through arduous efforts, purified their hearts and were therefore able to heal the split between themselves and God.

11

(I'm hard at work, still, so I haven't time to think too hard...)

---"You can have a faith based on experience as opposed to faith only based on ideological consent."

Yes I know. But faith still does not equate to knowledge, and the author smushes them together as if it does.

My wife went to a company dinner last week. I have faith - in this case, a form of confidence based upon past experience - that she did not cheat on me with another man. It's a position that is born of my experience with my wife, and having hopefully judged her character correctly.

But what I don't have is KNOWLEDGE that she didn't cheat on me. It is conceivable that I could send investigators on a mission to gather all possible information about what my wife did that night. And if they present me with evidence that my wife couldn't have been cheating on me, then it might be said I then have knowledge she didn't cheat on me.

So, while faith may be based on prior experience it is nonetheless employed when we don't have knowledge or evidence. If I'm with my wife, I know she's not cheating. If I'm not with my wife, I don't have the evidence or knowledge she's not cheating, which is where faith comes in.

So when the author says, in essence, true faith is knowing God exists, he's really done away with any real distinction between faith and knowledge. He's made faith superfluous.

And to say that this is how Christians view faith is to say the same thing; they would be re-defining faith as knowledge.

(But, as far as I can see, most of Christianity talks of faith in terms of "belief," not knowledge).

Thanks,

Prof.

12

See but the problem is the fact of your wife not cheating is knowable whereas that is not quite how it works with God.  You can't have a full knowledge of God because he won't fit in your brain.   If you find out for sure your wife didn't cheat the matter is settled because that knowledge from top to bottom can fit in your brain.  With God it is an ongoing thing where most of his reality remains a huge mystery. 

I think that a person could say that his faith is based on a real experience of God but God is ultimately unknowable.

13

---"Heart is not an easy word to define and I don't think it means the same thing in Christian thought as it does in popular culture (intuition, feeling, etc.) so I am not pretending like I can just define that perfectly. I think a person could spend a long time studying the concept. "

I understand.

----"I realize that when you are critiquing things written you are just playing along but if you are testing something out you have to suspend your disbelief across the board, not just selectively."

I wasn't being selective. I was taking the logic of the story and seeing what happens when applying it to some facts (e.g. that I do not apprehend God, and that people using their "intuition" come to so many different opinions of who God is and what he intends).

----"For instance, I perceive that some atheists suspend their disbelief long enough to try out what kind of God the OT God is but they measure him like they would a mere man in terms of how they conceive of him. I think this is dishonest since you can't judge God by human standards like that."

In terms of morality, God MUST be measured by human standards. There is no other reasonable way to go about it (and I submit, it is in fact how most Christians measure God anyhow...they just don't realise it).

Now, God is both analogous and disanalogous to human beings. What I find is that, when Christians use analogies to reason about God (or, at least to excuse God of crimes) they almost precisely reverse the analogies. They get it backwards.

I realise that seems a vague statement at the moment, but it's just an assertion at this point that I'm willing to go into at some point (and have actually supported in previous posts here).

Thanks as always for the interesting conversation. Sometimes this seems an inherently unbalanced interaction. That is, Christianity is something cherished by Christians, obviously. It's personal. When I (attempt to) dissect these issues, I'm reaching into a personal area for many Christians. Whereas there isn't something equally personal at stake on my end. You can dissect the problems in my reasoning, and
there isn't necessarily anything personal or cherished
that you are attacking. So it's no problemo.

All that is to say, I hope I can manage to discuss these things and remain sensitive to the feelings of Christians. I think that is one of the benefits of sticking around the HolyGround.

Peace,

Prof.

14

Prof,

I enjoy our conversations too and don't feel like you are encroaching on anything personal because I believe there is a God and he is your God too.  In that respect we are all interacting and wrestling with each other's ideas.  I believe our world views are always up for review and this is especially true when it comes to parts of them.  I may believe in God but have a very poor concept of him or a logically untenable belief about him that should be considered for change so its not as if when a person settles the big questions they will ever be done with the smaller ones that come as a consequence.  That's actually probably why Christians spend more time debating and disagreeing with each other than non-Christians.

Looks like we can continue this conversation in the other thread and frankly I was starting to defend a book which in reality I was just trying on for size and exploring so I really shouldn't try to defend F. Maximos if I am not even sure I support or believe what he says.