For almost six years I've been asking true believers of various faiths if they can provide any demonstrable evidence that God exists. (Any "God," personal or impersonal, monistic or dualistic, I'm not particular.)
Not surprisingly -- given the still ongoing vigorous debate concerning this subject after some 10,000 years of recorded human history -- I've never gotten a convincing answer.
But this doesn't stop the religious from believing in God.
Often I hear, "I just know that God exists. Don't ask me for proof. I just know." OK, I'll respond, good for you. But your subjective experience is only true for you, so don't expect me or anyone else to give credence to your belief given that it has such a flimsy basis.
Over on the Philosophy of Religion web site, this argument for the existence of God from subjective experience comes in for some well-deserved criticism.
It may be that I cannot prove to you that I had a religious experience, or even describe that experience to you, and so that my experience cannot count for you as evidence of God’s existence; for me, though, who knows that the experience is real and who does not need to describe it in order to understand it, my experience may provide a basis for rational belief.
Verifying one’s own religious experiences, however, can be just as problematic as verifying someone else’s. Thomas Hobbes asked what the difference is between saying “God spoke to me in a dream” and saying “I dreamt that God spoke to me.”
The problem is that religious experiences are merely mental events, and there is therefore no logical problem with our having these experiences without the world being as they represent it to be. We could just as readily doubt our own religious experiences, asking “Was I hallucinating?”, “Am I putting my own interpretation onto something mundane?”, “Was it something I ate?”, as anyone else’s. It seems, therefore, that we can never be sure enough of a religious experience to prove anything objective about the world.
However, there's another approach that some true believers like to take in an attempt to get around this obvious lack of demonstrable objective evidence for God. They cast God as the ultimate subject, the "I" behind all other senses of I-ness, the all-pervading consciousness which makes awareness of all sorts possible.
Elizabeth West, a Christian Buddhist, heads in this philosophical direction in her "Emptiness and God." I read her piece quickly, noting approvingly that after she quoted Ken Wilber, West wrote, "This is probably enough of Ken Wilber to digest in one go." Amen to that. That's often how I feel when I read Wilber also.
West uses quotes from Wilber, Ramana, Tillich, and others in an attempt to elucidate the notion of God as Absolute Subjectivity, the "witness" behind our thoughts, perceptions, and other contents of consciousness.
Well, that's an interesting idea.
However, I don't see how it (1) bears any resemblance to the God that billions of religious devotees from all sorts of faiths believe in, or (2) has any practical relevance to anything, being merely an abstract philosophical concept.
After all, let's consider what subjectivity means in everyday life. It's the inner side of us, as contrasted with the outer side that other people recognize.
Sartre and other existentialists speak of how I am an object to my wife, while she is an object to me. I know myself from the inside, but I can only know her from the outside, so to speak. And the same is true for her. We struggle to express our innermost feelings, knowing that what we know subjectively never can be adequately expressed objectively -- in words, actions, expressions, whatever.
Still, for every subject, for each human being, there is a corresponding object: his or her outward physical manifestation. Never is there a disassociated blob of pure subjectivity floating around, an "I" without any objective characteristics.
Each and every subjective experience that I or anyone else has is associated with something objectively real. Even dreams, which are highly subjective, take place in the physical brain, as do so-called "mystical" experiences -- since if the mystic is alive, he or she lives as (or at least through) a human brain.
So what would it mean for God to be Absolute Subjectivity? My short answer: nothing. This is a meaningless notion.
We have no experience of absolute subjectivity. There is no reason to believe that it exists, or is possible to exist. How could anyone experience a state of absolute subjectivity and know that such a state exists? For this to happen there would have to be awareness of a subjective state, which is dualistic, not "absolute."
I've read many books by Buddhist, Vedanta, Zen, and other sorts of practitioners that claim some sort of ultimate "I" exists. Consciousness with no content. Subjectivity without a subject. Awareness absent anyone being aware.
They all ring false, some more than others. For it simply isn't possible to experience a state of Absolute Subjectivity. You'd never know it if it was present, and if you knew it was present, that couldn't be it.
Same applies to God.
If God is Absolute Subjectivity, you'd never know if God was present, and if you knew God was present, that wouldn't be God.
So if there aren't any objective signs of God, and there can't be any signs of a purely subjective God, where does this leave us?
With no God. Or rather, no God that can be known.
Which is pretty darn similar to saying, "with no God." I'm fine with that, because reality is better than fantasy. I'm under no illusion, though, that the true believers of the world are going to give up their illusions.
Just a thought: World is full of real complex phenomena’s around us, and our mind may not have all the capabilities to understand them. To suppress ourselves our mind may have created this belief that there is somebody who knows and does everything and that is GOD.
Posted by: Raj | July 08, 2010 at 05:05 PM
There is no god and there is god. Both statements are true and false. There is no reasoning this out.
What you are trying to see is what is looking. What else could there be for you to see? What else could you never see?
We all miss it because we are there to miss it. If we were not present who would there be to miss it since it is what we are?
The sense of "I" drops all the time throughout the day when we are engaged in various activities. We are just doing them. They are just happening, appearing, automatically.
Somehow there comes a moment when the "I" drops away in such a way that one just wakes up.
Maybe like this: The hand rises to pick a peach...aha!
Trite, yes. I appologize.
Posted by: tucson | July 09, 2010 at 07:07 PM
Very well stated Tucson !!
We use science as some sort of verification of our experience of existence, as if we have lost confidence in our senses. Science is a group phenomena, it requires peer review for formal acceptance.
If I wake up one day and dreamt I saw a pink elephant on my drive, I do not need anyone to tell me they do not exist. I know what I experienced, and it was a dream. On the other hand, if I wake up and look out the window and see a pink elephant on my drive, and I know I am awake, I do not need a scientist or someone on this blog, or anyone else to tell me they dont exist. For me, I saw it, I had the experience as strongly as any other experience in what we call reality, and so any amount of argument and blogging discussion, ain't going to change my experience. nor would I care how lengthy a response Brian or tAo write about how subjective and therefore valueless an experience I had. Perhaps there are some who simply cannot see, just as there are those who are simply unable to see an image in a random dot picture. What I do not understand, and perhaps someone from this blog could explain, why the endless discussions and posts and comments about a topic and its followers, that is not believed and is generally agreed does not exist. If raking pine needles is more real and more rewarding, then go rake, Publicly discussing a topic that is considered valueless seems most contradictory
Posted by: Rabid thinker | July 10, 2010 at 11:10 PM
wrong. it is better to be able to discern between reality and illusion. if you see a pink elephant in your driveway, and can prove that it was there, then we can say that was real. however, you have not seen or proven that a pink elephant was in your driveway. so at this point, it is not real. its not about what i say or you say, or about anyn loss of confidence. its about what is real, and what is not. so your comment is but meaningless conjecture. and i think you misunderstood tucson, as well as Brian and myself. better luck next time.
Posted by: tAo | July 11, 2010 at 12:19 AM
Rabid thinker, so you are saying that a fantasy or hallucination is real if someone sees something that no one else does? Good luck explaining to the police why you went through a red light when you were dead drunk, believing that it was green. Maybe your philosophical explanations will be persuasive to the judge, but I doubt it.
Also, if you find discussions on this blog to be useless, why are you contributing to them? I enjoy raking pine needles, and I also enjoy blogging. I guess you do also. Glad I'm able to provide you with some pleasure.
Also, also, have I ever said that subjective experiences are valueless? No, just the opposite. Subjectivity and objectivity are both essential sides of our human nature. Most of us simply prefer to live in a shared world of human experience, not in our own purely personal worlds.
Posted by: Brian Hines | July 11, 2010 at 12:24 AM
Verification of a pink elephant may require the use of a Color standard. Your pink may actually be a light red color. In addition, what you may consider an elephant, may actually be a cow. So, to verify an observation, one would want to look up in some reference manual on animals to confirm. In addition, once all the data is confirmed by an expert in Zoology, then an observation could become real. I know, this sounds rather silly, however there is a Method being followed here.
Posted by: Roger | July 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM
Brian,
Maybe you are seeking the answer from the wrong source.
Ask God if He really exists. Be open to Him answering. Wait and listen. Have faith that He will answer.
If He says "yes," then you will have your answer.
If He says "no," you know it's not God.
If He doesn't answer, then you can continue to believe that most of humanity are idiots for believing in God, and you are superior in your wisdom and insight than most of humanity.
Or maybe, the millions of people who believe in God aren't as stupid as you thought. Maybe they are on to something, or Someone, as it were.
Here's the good news, you will dictate your own findings. Since you are the one who is deciding what is "evidence" and what is not, you will find what you want to find. So far, I guess you aren't interested in finding God.
From your post, it looks like your current god of choice is empiricism. Not sure why you chose this worldview but it is just as subjective as theism. This myth of pure objective knowledge comes from the 18th Century and modernity. Knowing the true God requires a different method in your pursuit of truth.
"Proving" God is like "proving" someone is in love. There is ample evidence, but no "hard empirical data." And love is all the better for it. You don't want a God you can empircally prove. A God like that would be too small and is more likely a god of our own making.
Evidence for God is more akin to "correlation" than "cause-and-effect." It is a softer kind of evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
Posted by: Mark | October 04, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Mark, I've been meditating every day since 1970. Each of those days I have been open to God in whatever form he/she/it might take on, and in whatever manner he/she/it might want to communicate with me.
So I have no idea what you're talking about. What you said makes no sense. Lots of people believe God talks to them. Lots of other people get a message from the cosmos, "there is no God." Others get no message at all.
Different messages, or the lack thereof, for different folks. Christians, Jews, HIndus ,Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists -- all look upon "God" (or the lack thereof) in a different way. If you've communicated with God, great. Just don't claim that your experience is anything other than your own.
Posted by: Brian Hines | October 04, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Mark:
Why do you think Brian has come to the conclusion that people who believe in God are "idiots" or "stupid"? I never got that impression at all. Rather I have observed Brian walking around with his own thoughts on various ideas, then sharing those here.
jon
Posted by: jon weiss | October 04, 2010 at 02:45 PM
Mark,
How does God, in your experience, say "yes" or "no"? Do you hear a voice? See an image? Get a feeling? How do you know it is not a projection of your own mind? What does God look like? Surely he must have more substance than a mere voice? I don't know. Maybe God is just a voice or a feeling, but I'm not sure that would convince me it is God. Why are you convinced?
Even more interesting is your concept of "finding God". What is it that you found? Is it that you simply found faith in God? What is it about it that convinces you it is God?
Posted by: tucson | October 04, 2010 at 07:35 PM
I actually think absolute subjectivity is a perfect way to describe God. We do not know anything about ourselves, nor about God; but we know more FROM ourselves than we do from God. If God is somehow omnipresent, clearly he must be a part of us too; but if God is greater than everything that exists, he must also somehow be the greater part within ourselves. Our only possible conclusion is that God is a more or less SYMBOLIC notion within the soul of the whole universe, that can only be understood as a limit to everything we can 'see' of our soul (through conceptualization). The mistake, however, as you are completely justified in stating, is that people would say that they KNOW God exists, which is impossible. For if God is absolute subjectivity, clearly the knowing faculties of our MIND are a subset of this symbolic unity that we would call God.
Posted by: Aap dromedaris | June 26, 2018 at 09:49 AM