Is God real?

It warmed my agnostic heart to see that this week's issue of Newsweek had "Is God Real?" on the cover. Usually news magazines run religion-friendly puff pieces around Easter and Christmas.

Kudos to Newsweek for asking the tough question. Which, of course, can't be answered.

However, this won't stop hundreds of millions of Christians from going to church tomorrow and glorying in the resurrection of someone who may or may not have actually existed, and is considered to be the son of a God who may or may not be real.

That's too many "may's" for me to take the occasion seriously. Indeed, it's almost comic that after more than two thousand years of fervent believing and God, show us a sign, there hasn't been a definitive one.

So the Newsweek article can quote Rabbi Jacob Heschel as saying:

[God] did not make it easy for us to have faith in him, to remain faithful to him. This is our tragedy: the insecurity of faith, the unbearable burden of our commitments. The facts that deny the divine are mighty, indeed; the arguments of agnosticism are eloquent, the events that defy him are spectacular…Our faith is fragile, never immune to error, distortion, or deception. There are no final proofs for the existence of God, Father and Creator of all.

Jon Meacham, the article's author, concludes: "No final proofs—there it is, the ultimate caveat. Doubt and faith are not at war; they are parts of the same whole."

Astute observation, Jon. The only difference between a believer and an agnostic is that the former isn't willing to admit that he doesn't know whether God is real, while the latter honestly testifies to his own unknowing. This makes the agnostic more honest and humble than the believer.

And possibly truer to God, if such a being exists.

For since no one knows what God is like—surmises and guesses being the currency of every religion—it's just as reasonable to assume that the Almighty is most pleased with the questioning spirit of agnostics who make good use of their God-given rational intelligence rather than naively latching onto nonsensical superstitions.

Meacham writes:

To base one's behavior on a blind acceptance of words put down long ago, however revered those words are, is an abdication of reason and responsibility—and reason and responsibility are, for many believers, gifts from God. Does a Christian in our time really think that, as Saint Paul argued, slavery is divinely ordained?

Every Christian, no matter how devout he or she may be, picks and chooses what to believe in the Bible. An agnostic like me does the same. I simply choose not to believe in the passages that tell me I have to believe in them. That's like going to a used car lot and having the salesman tell you, "Every automobile here is in great running order, trust me on that."

I'd rather kick the tires myself, thank you. Self-substantiating claims such as "We know Jesus died for our sins because the Bible tells us so" have a truth value of precisely zero for me.

There's also a debate between pastor Rick Warren and atheist Sam Harris in the Newsweek issue. Harris runs argumentative circles around Warren, in my utterly personal opinion.

For example, Warren notes that when Jesus says "I am the only way to God. I am the way to the Father," he is either lying or he's not. Well, of course he is. So what? Harris points out that "many, many other prophets and gurus have said that," which is absolutely true. Jesus has a lot of company when it comes to claiming to be the only way.

Warren also fell back onto the frequently heard "atheists are just as dogmatic as believers." No, they're not, Rick.

Atheists and agnostics are firm in their commitment to not accepting a theological proposition as being true unless there's some solid evidence for it. This is entirely different from having faith in dogma that lacks any experiential, observational, or even logical support.

No one knows whether God is real. Atheists and agnostics know that they don't know. Believers pretend they do. Like Socrates in Plato's Apology, this gives the sincere not-knowers a leg up on the pretenders. Socrates speaks of a man who had an undeserved reputation for wisdom:

Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.

More than slightly, I'd say. A lot more.

Comments

[Jeff Barrett]

"Agnostics are firm." That's funny.

Jeff Barrett
www.didacticworship.com

[Ashwin]

I see God everywhere - in the trees, in the water, in the winds, in the "perfection" of nature - can't you see it?

[Bob]

Ashwin,

What you say is simply your "take" on God...doesn't make it true.

The perfection in nature (study photosynthesis if you want your mind blown!!) may be the result of evolutionary adaptation processes over time. Whether there is a divine intelligence behind it all is really up for grabs.

Now Brian, I would suspect that Catholic and Orthodox Christians use such "so-called" miracles stories as the aparitions of Mary, stigmata, weeping crucifixes, ect. as proof of God and Jesus's existence. Although inconclusive, every religion has their miracle stories, which I suspect they use to validate their claims on God.

Bob

[Helen]

I find it confusing that faith can only exist in the absence of proof of God's existence, and yet "proof" is nonetheless offered in the shape of life testimonies, ghostly sightings, oddly shaped stains on the wall, and etc.

By the way Ashwin: can you see God in tooth decay, or cancer, slugs, weeds, potato blight and so on? I am reminded of Monty Python's hymn:

Monty Python All Things Dull And Ugly

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN.

[Brian]

Ashwin, I also see "something" everywhere. It's impossible not to. Existence exists. A Buddhist calls it That.

If that (or That) is the basis for your belief in God, your belief is groundless. Which doesn't mean it isn't genuine or real to you.

Just that it has no substance beyond what you ascribe to it.

Like Bob noted, everyone has their own "take" on the meaning of existence. The same sensory phenomena are interpreted in various ways.

Such as purported miracles. What we have here, Bob, are reports of certain happenings. There's no proof of miraculousness. The "miracle" is that people believe in them.

This proves the credulity of the human mind, but certainly offers no support for a belief in God.

Helen, you're right. As the Newsweek article said, faith can only exist in an absence of knowing. The same absence that non-believers recognize.

One person sees this lack of knowledge about God as evidence for God's existence. Other people, like me, say "that's total B.S."

I don't know anything about unicorns either, aside from myths about them. Does this mean I should have faith in unicorns? "Faith in things unseen" in a religious context is ridiculous.

What that phrase really means is that I should have faith in what certain religious authorities tell me I should take to be true, without evidence.

This isn't genuine faith, or reverence for, Mystery--which I (along with Einstein) consider to be the only valid spiritual sentiment--but rather blind faith in easily seen dogma.

[Paul Martin]

A couple footnotes to your train of thought:

1. Have you read much on Buddhism? A remarkable thing to me, as someone who was raised Catholic, is that its Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path aren't doctrines positing the existence of unseen dimensions or entities. They're about human experience in life as we know it and can be read, reflected on and evaluated in light of one's own experiences.

2. I was surprised to come across "Open Christianity" on Google. These are Christians who don't believe in the resurrection and view Jesus in terms that seem to pretty closely parallel the Buddhist view of the Buddha as an entirely human being and great teacher.

(I'm not affiliated with either Buddhism or Open Christianity.)

[Edward]

This is absolutlely the case. No one can prove that God is real. All the so-called proofs are just subjective opinions or dogmas about how some people wish things were.

I am agnostic when it comes to emotions, too. Everyone is always spouting about how they have a right to their feelings, how feelings influence thought. But there is no scientific proof for emotions. No one has ever shown me one, or made an objective measurement. I doubt there are any at all.

People delude themselves into acting in certain ways because of how they "feel", but it is all explainable through chemistry and the human body.

Bosh. And piffle.

[Tucson Bob]

We are searching for proof, but even if a god-like thing appeared in the sky and cast among us a million radiant angels trumpeting bliss and curing all ills, would that be proof that there is a God or just something that seems that way?

God is not AS an object so lifetimes could be spent looking for this thing to no avail. Infinite blogs can delve into the matter, but no genius will come up with a comprehensible answer, because what is sought is not comprehensible. We instinctively know that even though we hope otherwise.

IT is This which is looking for Itself when we look for It, but objectively It is not here. IT is nowhere to be found...AS AN OBJECT, yet IT is what you are which is no thing at all, and there is nothing to be done about IT. So live gladly as it is.

[Nikhilesh]

If you go and as an atheist, " Is God real?" four out of five would respond with a vehement No!
It will take hundreds of years for a so called scientific research to answer the question, for they are reading a different book, the book without, whereas the sages and saints read the book within, by meditating.
'God' has been defined in many ways and we may not tend to accept a particular definition. This however niether prooves nor rejects the possibility of existance of God or our own Higher Self.
What I want to say is that we must neither swallow religious teachings without salt nor conclude ourselves crudely as a mixture of chemicals.
MEDITATE AND EXPERIENCE THE TRUTH FIRST HAND!

Om Namah Shivay.

[Alan Berry]

Hey man,
You like most atheist - sound angry. Chill out - God is in control!

[Ashwin]

Wow.

The comment was supposed to be sarcastic.

[Brian]

Ashwin, sorry for the misunderstanding. You were subtly sarcastic. Guess I'm used to the more extreme form (which I tend to practice).

Still, you stimulated some interesting thoughts. So thanks for the subtlety.

[Tucson Bob]

When making comments, people should keep in mind that sarcasm sometimes does not come through clearly from printed material which lacks tone of voice, facial expression, etc., so Brian was not alone. Sometimes you have to know the person to tell if they're being sarcastic or not.

[tao]

Nikhilesh,

It is NOT going to take "hundreds of years" as you say, to answer the question. It will never be answered because the question itself is meaningless.

And your "sages and saints read the book within, by meditating" is acquired bullshit. And what "saints and sages" are you referring to? That sounds like spiritual and religious myth.

"God or our own Higher Self" is also conceptual bullshit.

You wrote: "we must neither swallow religious teachings..." Apparently you have swallowed religious teachings.

Meditation is always only subjective experience and sense perception, and NOT... "THE TRUTH".

So you obviously don't actually know what you are talking about.

[lhw3t9g8vyq2i]

The question "Is God real?" requires that one define God.

Is God the creator of the physical universe?
Is God creator of mankind?
Is God the one who hears and answers prayers?

I suspect different entities or groups of entities are responsible for each of these areas, but that they function in a unified hierarchy. I use the term God to refer to that hierarchy and I direct my prayers to God. In my more irreverant moments I call it the celestial bureaucracy.

If you believe in spirits, and you believe that spirits can communicate through mediums, then you might be interested to know what spirits have to say on the subject since they would seem to be in a better position to know about these things.

A lot of material relating to this can be found on line at
http://www.spiritwritings.com/library.html

Specifically there is work that was done through automatic writing of the type where the person's (William Stanton Moses) hand moved without him having to pay any attention what was being written. This type of mediumship is among the most accurate means spirits have of communicating their thoughts to people. These spirits claimed to be in the same lineage as spirits who inspired portions of the Bible.

Spirit Teachings:
http://meilach.com/spiritual/books/st/spteach.htm

More Spirit Teachings:
http://www.meilach.com/spiritual/books/morest/mspteach.htm

[Tucson Bob]

Dear lhw3t9g8vyq2i:

Have you ever tried to find out Who is praying to this God you pray to?

Why would spirits or a "celestial bureaucracy" have any more access to God, Truth, or whatever you want to call it, than you?

I think we should be careful about trusting spirits who claim to have inspired parts of the Bible which I find to be one of the most cryptic and misleading pieces of literature in existence.

[tao]

A Big Ditto to T.B.'s comment.

(ie: "spirits", "celestial bureaucracy", etc... what nonsense!)

[Ashwin]

In response to tao's post 4/9/4:38 -
The higher self or true (I regret to use the word but often, it derives itself from terminology) self comes in many names but have you ever studied esoteric branches of religion - Kabbalah, Advaita Vedanta, Christian Mysticism, etc? All of them tend to come to similar conclusions (and though this may seem similar to the God theory which all cultures possess) about a science for realization. Surely, there must be something to it, no? In fact, such systems of belief operate smoothly with or without God.

[tao]

Ashwin,

"The higher self or true ... self comes in many names"

That's only merely words and abstract ideas. Names are simply words.

"have you ever studied esoteric branches of religion - Kabbalah, Advaita Vedanta, Christian Mysticism, etc?"

Yes to all of the above... and far more than most people, and way more than I care to discuss.

"All of them tend to come to similar conclusions ... about a science for realization."

Their supposed conclusions are merely ideas. "realization" and the like is a myth. There is nothing to realize, and no one to realize anything.

"Surely, there must be something to it, no?"

No, its all nothing more than abstract thoughts, ideas, words. There is nothing to it. Its all a distraction.

"such systems of belief operate smoothly with or without God."

Your so-called "systems of belief" are all myths that have nothing to do with God. And "God" is a myth as well.

[lhw3t9g8vyq2i]

If you don't believe in spirits, you might be surprised to find out that there is a huge amount of scientific evidence proving their existence and that they are deceased people who used to live on earth. This evidence is reviewed in this free on-line e-book:

http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/index.html

If you are afraid that the teachings of these spirits are evil, you might be surprised to know that they consistently teach positive values like love, and forgiveness. Why would evil beings teach us to be good? By definition, that would make them good spirits. http://www.spiritwritings.com/library.html has many free online e-books written by spirits where you can see the truth of this for yourself.

[Nikhilesh]

Dear Tao,
Probably this meaningless question is the most frequent question which comes in everyone's mind.
Mother Theresa, Buddha, Ramana Maharishi certainly know more than my next door neighbour. They can be termed as a saint or sage.
I admit that I'm an over-excited beginner when it comes to spirituality ( sorry, I don't have any other word) but I prefer not to label everything as bullshit.
I find advaita vedanta quite meaningful & logical.
If meditation is sense perception, so is sight, taste & sound and moreover it requires a lot of concentration to make some progress.( I admit my failure)
So it should be more "true" than our normal sense perception.

Om Namah Shivay

[tao]

Nikilesh,

You wrote:
"Mother Theresa, Buddha, Ramana Maharishi certainly know more than my next door neighbour."

No they don't. And there is nothing to know. You've obviously bought into the myth.

"They can be termed as a saint or sage."

That is just mere words ("saint or sage"). Such descriptions hold no real significance.

"I find advaita vedanta quite meaningful & logical."

Maybe you do, but its still only abstract thought and ideas. Such philosophy and abstarction is a distraction from aliveness in every moment.

"If meditation is sense perception, so is sight, taste & sound and moreover it requires a lot of concentration to make some progress. So it should be more "true" than our normal sense perception."

Its all sense perception. So what? There is no "more true" or less true. Life is all only sense perception. But thoughts, words, ideas and philosophy and teachings etc are only abstact. They achieve nothing. However, there is nothing to achieve. So-called "realization" and "enlightenment" is simply a myth. Its just an idea. The only realization there is, is to realize that there is nothing to realize.

[Joe]

Dear Tao, from your comments I get the general feeling that you're a bit annoyed at the world. "You're wrong ...", "That's bullshit ..." "It's all meaningless ..."

Don't take it all so seriously. You'll be a long time dead.

And remember - even if you don't believe in God, I bet he believes in you,

[tao]

Joe,

I'm not "annoyed" at any such thing. But obviously you are annoyed about what I have said, and are projecting that onto me. You really don't have a clue.

Life is for the living, so I take my own life seriously. I don't worry about others though.

And as for the "God" crap, you can shove it.

[Nikhilesh]

Dear Tao,
A lot of doubts in my mind.
Even if God is just a myth, then what about the bhaktas of all religion? I'm not referring to the fundamentalists & hypocrites of theistic religion, only to those who love God ( and everybody) for love's sake, straight for the heart, without reason, without logic. Rabi'a, Meerabai, Tulsi das to name a few.
Are they not spiritually progressed?

[tao]

Nikilesh,

"God" is just a word, just an idea. Thats all it is. And whatever it may referring to, by whomever may be using it, is all very relative. You seem to be putting some special meaning and significance in this word, but in reality, it is only just an abstract idea that you are entertaining. Such ideas are like myths.

Regarding your so-called "bhaktas":

I must ask you, how do you know anything about them? How do you know that they had "love"? What is this "love"? And love for what? -- For some idea of "God" that they held in their minds?

What is this "love" that you speak of? What is this "God" that you speak of? Just where is this so-called "God"?

You ask, "Are they not spiritually progressed?" -- What makes you think or assume that they are? And what do you mean by "spiritually progressed"? And how would you even know if they were or not? Your assumption is really only based upon heresay about people long ago whom you yourself never knew.

The truth is that "spiritually progressed" is an illusion. Its just another idea of value judgement that you have. There is no reality to it. "Rabi'a, Meerabai, Tulsi das"... Who are they? Where are they? This is just all mere abstract ideas that you have acquired, and that you now try to use as reference points to substantiate your presumptions about "God" and so-called spiritual progress.

Actually, none of it means anything. You just want to believe that it means something... thats all. You want to believe in these abstract ideas about "love", "God", "saints", "masters", "bhakti", "meditation", "spititual progress", etc. etc. etc. All these notions are nothing but a distraction which obscures the wonderous living reality in every moment. Abandon all that conceptual nonsense and awaken to the reality of your aliveness.