Of philosophers and God
19/02/15 05:13
When I was a college student, I enjoyed studying philosophy, earning enough credits to have a minor in the subject. Dr. Cliff Murphy and Dr. Helen Bross ignited my interest in not only reading the works of philosophers but also in the history of philosophy and patterns of rational thought. I’ve never been much of a mathematician but our college required that all students have a rounded education, so courses in the sciences and in mathematics were required. The “match” for me and math was logic. I really connected with the study of patterns of thought and how errors in thinking could lead to inaccurate conclusions. I guess there has long been a part of me that enjoys a debate. But when I use that term, it has nothing to do with the processes demonstrated by contemporary legislative bodies, where speechifying is all about outshouting your opponent, engaging in parliamentary tricks and nobody listens to the speeches, having already made up their mind. I am far more interested in forms of presentation that have at least some chance of changing the thoughts of the others. The truth isn’t established by which side has the most money. There are some patterns of thinking that are more rational - that make more sense - than others.
As I result, I continue to pick up essays and books by philosophers and enjoy reading them in part because of the joy of examining their patterns of thinking and looking for flaws in their reasoning that might reveal weaknesses in their arguments.
This week, I’ve been dabbling in philosophy again. Friends of mine just released a book of essays and a few poems. The cornerstone of the book is an extended essay by John Caputo. Because my friends were involved in the production of the book, I pre-ordered a copy and got mine just 24 hours after it was released. I’m looking forward, most of all, to reading the responses to Caputo’s paper, but to read those intelligently, I need to wade through the original paper. And philosophy doesn’t read quickly. I can read all kinds of things as I’m drifting off to sleep in the evening. But complex thoughts require a bit more focus, so it took me a couple of days to wade through the essay with all of the other activities in my life.
This is not a response to the book, but a reflection that was sparked by Caputo’s essay. At this point in my life, I am bored with arguments about the existence (or non existence) of God. I don’t mind reading them from time to time, but it seems to me like very little that is truly new about the topic has come out of our generation. I’ve read lots of classical arguments. I understand the various sides to them. In essence, however, there is little that seems new in the conversation.
The 20th century French philosopher Jacques Derrida developed what has been healed by some as a new form of analysis called deconstruction. He gathered a group of disciples who were intrigued by his way of thinking and John Caputo is definitely in that camp. Caputo, in turn has had a big influence on the thinking of Peter Rollins, who earns his living traveling around the country speaking to mostly young adult audiences who haven’t heard these ideas before and are experiencing what seem to me to be quite tired old arguments as new ideas. I’m sure I would share their enthusiasm were I younger.
The bottom line is that no argument in words, no matter how eloquent or how well-constructed in terms of logic, will banish the notion of God from this world. The idea of God, which is not the same as the independent reality of God, has genuine staying power in human societies. People have been talking about and believing in God for millennia and they will continue to do so long after our generation has passed back into the dust of the earth.
Caputo recognizes this. He doesn’t try to deny the existence of the idea of God, though sometimes one is uncertain about his concept of the reality of God. Reading him reminded me of Moses’ conversation with God before he went to Pharaoh for the first time to argue for the freedom of the people of Israel. Moses askes, “Who shall I say has sent me?” His question is a deeply philosophical question. It wasn’t that Moses lacked belief in God. Moses has had a first-hand personal experience with God that no logic would dissuade. But Moses is aware that Pharaoh has a completely different theological understanding. Pharaoh has a belief system that has many different small gods, none of whom have complete authority. Pharaoh himself is a type of god, having a limited sphere of influence and authority. Moses wrestles, in his conversation with God, about how to introduce the concept of a single God, creator and ruler of the entire universe who was embraced by the ancestors of the people Pharaoh has under him as slaves. How do you even talk with Pharaoh about God, when Pharaoh doesn’t believe in God?
God responds, “Tell Pharaoh, ‘I am who I am.’” “Tell him ‘I am’ has sent you.
Moses learns to start his argument with the assumption that God exists. There is no need, even in his exchanges with Pharaoh, to even have a conversation about whether or not God exists.
I find myself in that camp. I approach every conversation with the existence of God engrained in my core identity. I try to have patience with arguments about the existence of God. I try to listen carefully to the arguments of those who try to dissuade others from believing in God. But none of those arguments would make God cease to exist for me. None of those arguments would make my being capable of existing without God. I simply start every conversation from the core reality that God is.
I realize that this is a difference between John Caputo and me, just as it was a difference between Pharaoh and Moses. The bottom line, in that story, however, is that Pharaoh didn’t need to believe in God for the people to gain their freedom from God. Moses didn’t have to win the argument. The freedom of the people was sufficient.
I continue to enjoy reading philosophy. I have no need to convince the philosophers of anything. And they, in turn, can wrestle with God’s existence all they want. God, in the meantime, will continue to lead people to freedom.
As I result, I continue to pick up essays and books by philosophers and enjoy reading them in part because of the joy of examining their patterns of thinking and looking for flaws in their reasoning that might reveal weaknesses in their arguments.
This week, I’ve been dabbling in philosophy again. Friends of mine just released a book of essays and a few poems. The cornerstone of the book is an extended essay by John Caputo. Because my friends were involved in the production of the book, I pre-ordered a copy and got mine just 24 hours after it was released. I’m looking forward, most of all, to reading the responses to Caputo’s paper, but to read those intelligently, I need to wade through the original paper. And philosophy doesn’t read quickly. I can read all kinds of things as I’m drifting off to sleep in the evening. But complex thoughts require a bit more focus, so it took me a couple of days to wade through the essay with all of the other activities in my life.
This is not a response to the book, but a reflection that was sparked by Caputo’s essay. At this point in my life, I am bored with arguments about the existence (or non existence) of God. I don’t mind reading them from time to time, but it seems to me like very little that is truly new about the topic has come out of our generation. I’ve read lots of classical arguments. I understand the various sides to them. In essence, however, there is little that seems new in the conversation.
The 20th century French philosopher Jacques Derrida developed what has been healed by some as a new form of analysis called deconstruction. He gathered a group of disciples who were intrigued by his way of thinking and John Caputo is definitely in that camp. Caputo, in turn has had a big influence on the thinking of Peter Rollins, who earns his living traveling around the country speaking to mostly young adult audiences who haven’t heard these ideas before and are experiencing what seem to me to be quite tired old arguments as new ideas. I’m sure I would share their enthusiasm were I younger.
The bottom line is that no argument in words, no matter how eloquent or how well-constructed in terms of logic, will banish the notion of God from this world. The idea of God, which is not the same as the independent reality of God, has genuine staying power in human societies. People have been talking about and believing in God for millennia and they will continue to do so long after our generation has passed back into the dust of the earth.
Caputo recognizes this. He doesn’t try to deny the existence of the idea of God, though sometimes one is uncertain about his concept of the reality of God. Reading him reminded me of Moses’ conversation with God before he went to Pharaoh for the first time to argue for the freedom of the people of Israel. Moses askes, “Who shall I say has sent me?” His question is a deeply philosophical question. It wasn’t that Moses lacked belief in God. Moses has had a first-hand personal experience with God that no logic would dissuade. But Moses is aware that Pharaoh has a completely different theological understanding. Pharaoh has a belief system that has many different small gods, none of whom have complete authority. Pharaoh himself is a type of god, having a limited sphere of influence and authority. Moses wrestles, in his conversation with God, about how to introduce the concept of a single God, creator and ruler of the entire universe who was embraced by the ancestors of the people Pharaoh has under him as slaves. How do you even talk with Pharaoh about God, when Pharaoh doesn’t believe in God?
God responds, “Tell Pharaoh, ‘I am who I am.’” “Tell him ‘I am’ has sent you.
Moses learns to start his argument with the assumption that God exists. There is no need, even in his exchanges with Pharaoh, to even have a conversation about whether or not God exists.
I find myself in that camp. I approach every conversation with the existence of God engrained in my core identity. I try to have patience with arguments about the existence of God. I try to listen carefully to the arguments of those who try to dissuade others from believing in God. But none of those arguments would make God cease to exist for me. None of those arguments would make my being capable of existing without God. I simply start every conversation from the core reality that God is.
I realize that this is a difference between John Caputo and me, just as it was a difference between Pharaoh and Moses. The bottom line, in that story, however, is that Pharaoh didn’t need to believe in God for the people to gain their freedom from God. Moses didn’t have to win the argument. The freedom of the people was sufficient.
I continue to enjoy reading philosophy. I have no need to convince the philosophers of anything. And they, in turn, can wrestle with God’s existence all they want. God, in the meantime, will continue to lead people to freedom.