Why Do I Care?
In a conversation on De-Conversion, Pat (comment #15) said
“I would like to see a post on your blog as to why someone would follow God.”
This is a very good question and one that needs to be asked by Christians and non-Christians alike, but often goes unaddressed in Christian circles. I will endeavor to provide a generic answer to the question here. However, before we can start to answer why someone would follow God, there are a lot of underlying assumptions about God and our knowledge of Him that we must first address. By doing so not only will we all be on the same page regarding certain terms and concepts, but we will be able to follow the logic used (hopefully) in answering this question from start to finish.
First, let us note that initially the Agnostic’s observation regarding the possibility of God is spot on: namely that there may or may not be a God, but if there is, humans would have no way of ascertaining anything about Him/Her. Much of what we do in western culture (due in large part to the Greek philosophical influence on the west) is an attempt of man to reason what God must be like. The humble truth found in the Agnostic’s viewpoint is that man by his/her very nature should be unable to ascertain anything about their creator. This would be akin to the statue of David discerning claims about Michelangelo on its own intellect. The only way for the creation to know anything about its creator is for the creator to condescend to the creation’s level and communicate to it on the creation’s terms.
Second, we must then evaluate if there has ever been such a communication. Of course this step leads to a vast number of questions and controversies, but for the sake of answering Pat’s question in the generic (meaning not even from a Christian standpoint), we will assume that such a communication has occurred.
Third, we must evaluate the reliability of that communication. Descartes’ Meditations takes this question into account. What if God is deceptive? Why is His/Her communication trustworthy? What I am prepared to venture at this point is that God’s reliability as a communicator, which we already stated would need to be done on our terms, would be tested through a demonstration of divine power (meaning power that only the creator would have) and continued faithfulness (meaning that He/She never deviates from His/Her word). In other words, we would only have reason to doubt the communication we have received if it was from someone other than the creator or if the creator were an unreliable source.
Fourth, we must evaluate the content of that communication. This is the part that directly answers Pat’s question. Does the content of God’s communication warrant its recipient’s adherence? This is something that Pat very keenly picks up on in the last part of his comment “To me, if God exists that doesn’t automatically mean that I should follow God.” Very true. God’s mere existence wouldn’t necessitate our following Him/Her, however if the content of His/Her communication required our following of Him/Her, then we would in fact be required to follow. In other words, God’s existence doesn’t require our obedience, only His/Her command to follow would.
Fifth, we must evaluate the efficacy of that communication. Does this communication expect that we will obey, and are there consequences for a lack of obedience? If there is an expectation by the creator for obedience, and that expectation isn’t met, what then? What would we think about a powerful Creator God with the ability to communicate with Its creation who was then impotent to enforce the code He/She had laid down? It would seem to violate the condition we set forth in step 3.
It is my contention that Christianity offers all of these points in favor of our following God, and even goes beyond that in what it says we can expect of our God. My analysis of those claims will likely have to be spread out over several different articles. In the meantime, I am more concerned of your opinion regarding the immediate views I have put forth. I realize that throughout this logical chain I have developed, people will fall off the band wagon at different points in where they agree and disagree, so I would like to focus the comments section on where (if anywhere) people lose confidence in God/choose not to follow His communication.
36 Responses
to “Why Do I Care?”
1 Trackback(s)
- Mar 14, 2008: Why I Do Care « Confessions of a Seminarian
Posts
I am no phiosophy nut - but I will take some time to answer (philosophy usually does not account for reality even thought it’s claims are such).
“What would we think about a powerful Creator God with the ability to communicate with Its creation who was then impotent to enforce the code He/She had laid down?” (Mike)
Interesting thought - however - the true problem in this question is the idea God has to enforce a code - we tend to have very little proof God does this or how this is done (if done). As humans, we do this with law structures and boundaries - again I don’t see God’s intervention (unless it’s via us). This idea can become very problematic if it needs to be adhered to by the Christian faithful - because God quit intervening it would seem?
“so I would like to focus the comments section on where (if anywhere) people lose confidence in God/choose not to follow His communication.” (Mike)
Good question - I have a tough time answering this because I have lost a lot of confidence in the church but not much in the figure of God. God has always been a constant for me and is part of the spirituality of many people I know and hang around with - I know very few atheists (1 or 2 I think) - then again - I know very few people that seek God in much depth (a lot of people seem to be in the middle - and I must seem like that to my friends also).
The best answers I can give are those that seem to expose problems with God’s character based on Christian doctrine. Including aspects of prayer, the idea of hell, and perfection. Some things seem to push people into dubious questions about ‘who God is’ and ‘how He acts’ - and when placed in real world applications - sometimes we are massly disappointed in God - but this all goes back to what we were taught as ‘truth’ about God.
You did it…sweet!
I’m going to think over this one some but I’ll make a couple of broader points right now.
“What would we think about a powerful Creator God with the ability to communicate with Its creation who was then impotent to enforce the code He/She had laid down?”
Does might make right?
I’m more worried about the content of the communication. If a powerful Creator God tells me to kill my neighbors or else, I might do it out of self-interest but theoretically I would consider the action evil and that God evil too.
societyvs,
“we tend to have very little proof God does this or how this is done (if done)”
In the Christian story, the most obvious consequence we receive from the disobedience of God’s word is death itself. The consequences of disobedience in life are often case by case, so you are correct, there is little to hold God against the wall with Him acting in time as far as carrying out punishment. Interestingly enough, the Bible seems more concerned with how God is redeeming man from his disobedience.
I appreciate your honesty in answering my question. I guess when I initially wrote this article, I wasnt thinking how personal it could get.
Pat,
Of course I wrote the article:) It was a good question.
“Does might make right?”
Another good question, and this one stems from the whole Machiavellian “Is it better or worse to have people fear you as a king” question. In addition to this question you state in a related way,
“I would consider the action evil and that God evil too.”
I think your question and statement stem from a “man first” perspective. If God is our creator, why would He ask us to do something we werent created for? I think the reason that killing your neighbor sits so poorly with you is because that is a reflection of the creator’s values in you. In other words, if God wanted to create people as His own private gladiator arena, you would have the normative desire to kill everyone you saw.
At this point, everyone that is reading this will want to remind me that the Christian story states that God commanded His people to kill others, which is very true. But rather than this being a normative command and desire of God, it should be held up in contrast with Ezekiel 18, where God expresses His desire that not one single person should die. So there must be a more complex reason for God ordering His people to kill others if His normative desire is that none should perish.
When I started reading this post, I was actually quite thrilled at where I thought it would go. The more I read, however, the less interest I had. It wasn’t at all what I was hoping it would be.
TheNorEaster,
What were you hoping for?
Love.
“Interestingly enough, the Bible seems more concerned with how God is redeeming man from his disobedience.” (Mike)
Interesting - like you mean all of humanity in the present tense and not just from some pre-Adamic condition we inherit right (ie: born with sin)? I think the bible is basically about the redemption of humanity but also a way to live that is truly ‘living’. I think the gospels give us great direction in a way of life that is both productive and redeeming.
As a part of God’s communication to us? In my presentation of the argument? In what way?
I wouldnt say that Love was absent from God’s communication to us, but that sends us more on a track towards a Christian understanding than I wanted to go for the article. I would say it is certainly present in Christianity and I hint at that at the end of the article, but its lack of mention stemmed from my desire to make it more general in the article and let it get more specific in the comments.
“I wouldn’t say that Love was absent from God’s communication to us”
“lack of mention stemmed from my desire to make it more general”
In my opinion and being one of those heretical Episcopalians love is a very compelling part of the story. But, with what you have presented this becomes a somewhat irrelevant part of the story.
The central idea that God created you therefore you should follow God makes the issue of love null. Sure God may be loving but what if God wasn’t? The central idea presented still says you should follow God no matter what. Jesus could of come to earth and been a bastard to everyone and therefore the story would have been different, but still your underlying premise for why one should follow God still remains.
Sorry, wrote this one quick so kinda sloppy. Leaving for a trip for a few days.
“I think your question and statement stem from a “man first” perspective” (Mike)
I would put forth the simplest of arguements here - that’s the only perspective we really have.
“So there must be a more complex reason for God ordering His people to kill others if His normative desire is that none should perish.” (Mike)
Or perhaps there is a very simple answer to this - it wrecks inerrancy but it’s a logical answer also - maybe people wrote as they felt ‘inspired’ by God - but they still wrote based on their personal perspectives and culture. I am not sure this counts as an ‘error’ in the bible but merely a perspective/worldview the existed at the time.
The God ‘on our side’ is quite a common phenomenon within the human sphere. America did with the whole ‘terrorism’ thing and so did the other side - when it first got started in 2001. As a Canadian, an outsider to both, I could see the jargon for what it was - jargon to rally the troops covered in patriotic sauce - from both sides. People do this when they need an even bigger reason to do what they want and slightly absolve themselves from the responsibility of their decisions (or to play to someone’s sentiments).
As for God ordering the death of whole people groups - I cannot truly buy into that as a characteristic of God (and then again - maybe God makes bad mistakes?). It would justify a lot of horror - even that of the terrorists, slave owners, or genocide - and that’s not the God I see in the gospels or for that matter, the Exodus event. So I can only riddle this one down to human worldviews and writings - and people wrote as ‘inspired’ by God but also ’shaped’ by cultural and historic leanings.
Pat,
“In my opinion…love is a very compelling part of the story.”
You are very correct, it is a compelling part of the Christian story. Your original question regarded God in general, so I tried to make my response more general. If I had known you meant specifically why someone should follow the Christian God, I would have written the article differently (and in fact, that might make a good follow up to this article. you are just giving me tons of good material:)
Societyvs,
“that’s the only perspective we really have. ”
Not if we have been given a genuine communication from God. That would be our view at His perspective.
“Or perhaps there is a very simple answer to this - it wrecks inerrancy but it’s a logical answer also - maybe people wrote as they felt ‘inspired’ by God - but they still wrote based on their personal perspectives and culture.”
This point then hits on doubting the reliability of the communication (point 3 in my post). It sounds like we are coming from different perspectives on this issue, which realizing helps to aid the discussion. I have written a post on biblical interpretation that will be coming out one of these Fridays that shows how sometimes the more faithful interpretation of the author’s intention is not to read everything at face value, but to enter in to the conventions they use (i.e. sarcasm, irony, contrast, exaggeration, etc.)
I’m afraid I ‘fell off’ at the very first link in the chain.
Why is it natural to assume that we couldn’t learn anything about our hypothetical creator?
Lifelessons,
Nice to have you in the discussion!
“Why is it natural to assume that we couldn’t learn anything about our hypothetical creator?”
A fair question, but in light of the analogy I made with regards to the Statue of David and Michelangelo, how might we ascertain anything about God unless He reveals Himself?
That’s making the assumption that the God/human relationship must necessarily be like that of a statue and the one who crafted it. Why would we automatically assume this?
I mean, we humans can (essentially) create bacteria in their trillions by cloning them and then putting them in culture solutions. Obviously, bacteria can’t understand anything about us. If we made a machine that could create fully sentient hominids, though - let’s say ape-like creatures that were only marginally less intelligent than us - they would be perfectly capable of understanding us, even if they could never be as intelligent as us.
To say that we can’t understand anything about God is taking a bit of a leap, isn’t it? Unless we know how intelligent God is first, we can’t say that we’re as inanimate statues compared to him with any sort of certainty.
Lifelesson,
You make a fine point, and it stems from me not defining my terms (sorry). My first premise rests on the condition that the creator be altogether “other” from the creation. In other words, because God is entirely distinct from His creation (that means all of it) we have no means by which to ascertain anything about Him, unless He first condescends to reveal Himself. In fact, I would argue that the only reason we (or anyone for that matter) are even having this conversation about God is because He has already communicated to us.
Well, that’s jumping the gun a bit
One of the points I was trying to subtly make here is that you have several choices when defining any sort of god or Divine Creator - you can randomly assign attributes to it for no good reason (Eg ‘God has pink hair and is invisible’), you can use reason to assign attributes to a creator that you think are necessary or likely (Eg ‘God must be seperate from its creation’) or you can draw attributes from Scripture (Eg ‘God is Triune’ or ‘God is, in some way, male - or at least, is identified with male pronouns’).
The problem with the first should be evident, in that it gets you nowhere.
The problem with the second is that you have no way of reliably knowing whether or not any of your attributes really are necessary or likely, having no Divine Creator actually sitting in front of you to study. I certainly don’t know whether an entity that could create the Universe need necessarily be seperate from it; the entity itself could actually be the Universe. But it’s all conjecture because we know nothing factual about a Divine Creator.
The third is generally not a problem for the faithful, because a Holy Book is where they draw their faith from in the first place (alright, this could be disputed, but let’s not get into that). However, in this case we’re still at the first step in a chain of reason which terminates in an attempt to show that said Holy Book is reliable in the first place, and thus it would make no sense to assign attributes based on the Holy Book to something being discussed before the Holy Book’s veracity has been established (that’s what I meant about ‘jumping the gun’).
To make a long-winded story short, I have no real reason to accept that God must be ‘other’ from his creation, or indeed that God must have any attribute you care to name at all, unless you demonstrate that it’s likely or necessary it has said attribute. Because the idea of ‘God’ is so nebulous in the first place, we need some sort of actual evidence or observation to draw on, otherwise we have absolutely no way of knowing whether we’re on the right track - and of course, in this case resorting to Biblical descriptions of God is no good, because you’re trying to establish that the Bible is a reliable communication. If you were to use the Bible now, you’d be assuming what you’re trying to prove.
(I’m not saying we should take this any further, by the way - it would get incredibly tedious very fast, and I’ve probably already bored a lot of people to tears. I’m just explaining why I’m ‘getting off the wagon’ right from the start).
“I would like to see a post on your blog as to why someone would follow God.”
Love was the first thing I thought of. And the only.
Could you explain exactly how ‘love’ inevitably leads to belief in God?
Lifelessons,
Again, you make some very good points.
“I’m just explaining why I’m ‘getting off the wagon’ right from the start”
That is fine, and I appreciate you answering the question I pose at the end of my article. Obviously I disagree with your conclusions, but if you are done discussing your stance on the issue, then at least allow me to show why your argument shouldn’t hinder others from believing.
Ultimately, premises 1 and 2 are out of the realm of our knowledge and definition. We come into the mix at premise 3, the point where we are called to evaluate the communication God has given regarding Himself. The evaluation of this communication will help us to determine not only God’s existence but also His nature. Otherwise, we remain in the dark regarding anything pertaining to God. This is why Lifelessons feels as though there is so little to know for certain about God, because there is a denial about either the integrity of the communication from God (premise 3) or its existence at all (premise 2).
Disbelief in these premises would only serve to show that the individual finds no reason to obey God (Pat’s original question). I just felt that through discourse about them, we might all be able to better identify where we are in the chain. Then when we converse in the future, the underlying assumptions we make as we debate these issues will be clear to everyone.
Now NorEaster and Pat have keyed in on a desire for a chain built from Love, something that Lifelessons has shown an interest in better understanding. I will do my best to undertake this project this Friday, however it will be based in a Christian worldview. My hope in doing so will be to show that the logical requirements made here, when applied to the Christian story, show that the Christian story goes above and beyond.
I’ll be watching how this unfolds with interest, particularly if it pertains to demonstrating God’s actual existence (I have little interest in pondering whether I should follow God, since I don’t believe that he’s real).
I’d like to point out two more (small) things, though:
This is why Lifelessons feels as though there is so little to know for certain about God, because there is a denial about either the integrity of the communication from God (premise 3) or its existence at all (premise 2).
I would prefer the term ‘doubt’ rather than ‘denial’. Denial implies a conscious supression of something that one knows to be true, which is not the case here.
Disbelief in these premises would only serve to show that the individual finds no reason to obey God (Pat’s original question).
Be wary of saying things like this; it’s never a good idea to assume that someone can only disbelieve something for one reason, and comes off as quite condescending. Disbelief in the premises could just as equally mean that one finds fault with them on a logical level.
Lifelessons,
True and true. I have nothing to add because you are right on both counts, all I might offer is an apology if I came across as condescending in any way. Once again, it is good to have you to the blog, and hopefully I will be able to get the second article pertaining to this discussion written in time for this Friday.
I’ll be looking forward to it
Lifeless:
Re: Comment #20
Of course I could. But you have already answered your own question.
The NorEaster:
…how?
yeah. how?
“Not if we have been given a genuine communication from God. That would be our view at His perspective.” (Mike)
Irregardless of genuine communication we still have to filter this through our human minds and come up with a perception about that communication - so yeah - all you truly have is your vantage point about God (not God’s).
“This point then hits on doubting the reliability of the communication” (Mike)
But I don’t doubt the reliability of the communication - I think it is truly legit - with human paw prints all over it. However, the communication may be legit we still to need to decipher what it all means to humanity and if that communication is still in existence (since we are using written words from about 1900 years ago - as our basis). The big question truly is what it means when we read the documents (ie: gospels and letters) and if communication is still happening in our current day. I think both still exist to some level but what is of great value is good interpretation.
Read Comment #20 again. Very very carefully.
You’ll find it. It’s all right there. Right in front of you.
NorEaster:
Erm……..I’m not trying to seem dogged about this. but I’m not getting it. I mean, it seems like you are trying to say that the answer is incredibly simple, but you are telling us to go look at comment # 20, which is from lifeslessonsfromwriting and reads:
“Could you explain exactly how ‘love’ inevitably leads to belief in God?”
I don’t understand how this explains your belief that love is why people choose to have faith in God. comment 19 by you reads:
“‘I would like to see a post on your blog as to why someone would follow God.’
Love was the first thing I thought of. And the only.”
This makes a little more sense to me,but I’m still not grasping it. I could make wild eccentric guesses, but I’d rather hear your ideas, yo.
Kyle:
In Comment #25, I stated that Lifeless has already answered his, or her, own question. I was referring to Comment #20, in which Lifeless has said, “Could you explain exactly how ‘love’ inevitably leads to belief in God?”
To me, the operative word was “INEVITABLY.” I never used that word in any of my responses; Lifeless did.
So, the answer you’re looking for? If Lifeless truly understood humanity’s longing for God’s great love–and could see the symptoms of our separation from it–then s/he would understand the INEVITABILITY of our desire for that love.
And yet, Lifeless also put the word ‘love’ in quotes. That also tells me that s/he does not fully understand God’s great love–Who does?–but has, at the very least, some questions.
(I apologize for not giving my explanation sooner, but I have a lot of demands on my time right now. And I am trying to avoid spending my creative energy on blogs because my publisher needs to have my manuscript on her desk next month.)
ah. okay.
In other words:
‘love’ inevitably leads to belief in God
NorEaster:
That didn’t really answer the question at all. You’ve just reiteratd what you said earlier - that ‘Love = belief in God’. You haven’t actually explained why. I still have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Sorry to disappoint everyone, but I was unable to finish the article regarding the Christian rendition of this formula. Instead, I have an article on Biblical Interpretation which I will post tomorrow. That means the Christian version of this discussion will be the following Friday. Stay tuned, and thanks again for all your comments!