Knowing God?

This is the unedited version. I will try to put out cleaner copy if time permits.

What can we know about a god, and how

One of the most interesting questions to be explored with regard to religion is about the god of that religion, specifically, what can we know about that god. That necessitates the follow up question: How can we know it. As a skeptic, I get a lot of Christians telling about their god, who he is, his characteristics, and what he wants from us. What I don't get much of is how they know all that, and why I should accept their word as authoritative. Let's jump in with the most obvious answers and see where it goes from there:

God is

Moses wanted to know what to tell the Egyptian king when he asked about who sent Moses. God told Moses to say that the I AM sent him. Not only does god exist, but in some way, he is existence itself. God is. Whatever is is, god is. That is both the most basic thing about god, and the most confusing.

It seems to me that such a proposition should be independently verified and not dependent on special revelation as found in a book. It should just be obvious to everyone that god is. It is a thing that shouldn't need to be proven. We know that god is because god speaks to us. He appears to us in unambiguous ways. Furthermore, he has done so since our birth. No one ever has to prove that clouds exist. Even small children know that clouds exist. Somehow, god is more etherial than clouds. That's weird.

So how do we know that god exists? What is the big proof of his existence. The biggest proof offered by Christians is that it says so in a book. Also, everything we know about god is conveniently located in a book. But that does not satisfy the demands of proof because the propositions in the book also need to be proven independently. We are just kicking the can down the road.

Another way Christians try to prove that god exists is through formal and informal philosophy. This is a rather iffy project because most professional philosophers are not believers. And most non-philosophers are not particularly good at doing philosophy. I'm a pretty sharp guy most days and some of those arguments fly over my head. Beyond that, philosophy is a very roundabout way of proving the existence of a god. No one uses philosophy to prove the existence of dogs, germs, or football teams. God is in a special category that cannot be proven conventionally.

Christians try to equate god's existence to love. But no one has to prove the existence of love as it is something we have all experienced. We don't have to prove happiness, beauty, or numbers. God is not in the same category. But if he is, that is just proof that I am a bad philosopher who can never find god via that mechanism.

Also, Christians suggest that they know god exists because of nature and science. This one has always seemed to be a bit of a stretch since many naturalists and scientists don't believe god exists. Some do. But others don't. All that proves is that it is an unreliable mechanism for discovering god. Paul thought that nature proved the existence of god. Then again, he also thought that it was a disgrace for women to have short hair, in part, because of the angels.

One thing I have learned about science is that it is far from intuitive. Some bits of it are. But that just gives one the false confidence to think they understand science intuitively. If you believe science is mostly intuitive, you are wrong about the science you think you know. God is the easy and intuitive answer to hard problems of ancient people. Magical answers are what children intuit. If Jesus is the answer, you are probably not asking a science question at all. There is nothing about nature that speaks of a god. However, if you do find god in a telescope, a Nobel Prize awaits.

He is omni

Another thing Christians seem to know about god is that god is omni everything. I have no idea why this is necessary. But for Christians, it is. My guess is that it is like the children's argument about whose dad is the best. My dad is smarter than yours, and stronger, and faster, and better in every way to the ultimate degree. Oh yeah? Mine is better to infinity!

For god to be better than other gods is not enough. He has to be better to infinity. God is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all present, and all everything else you can think of, to infinity! I guess that makes him the best god. But how could anyone possibly know gods true characteristics. It isn't as if we have done a scan or checked his DNA. There isn't even clear scriptures for all that. So how do we know?

A god could be very powerful without being all powerful. A god could have created something without having created everything. We don't need to solve the first-mover problem to posit a god that created the earth. That is unsatisfying to Christians. They tend to prefer a god that is responsible for everything. It is all or nothing for them. Not so with other god-beliefs. My point is that all-powerful is not a necessary trait for a god. And there is no obvious reason why the Christian god has to have that trait. So why do Christians insist that he does?

Even if the bible said that he had those traits, it doesn't follow that he does for all the same reasons that the bible is not proof that this god even exists. So where else would we go to find those traits. Again, they tend to go to philosophy and nature to make an argument that can be sustained by neither.

God is good

Every child knows that god is great. God is good. But how do they know? They haven't read the bible. They know because the primary authority figures in their lives told them that god is good. They learned it by wrote and never bothered unlearning it. I guess that settles it. But how do they know it is true?

Stop me if you've heard this before: we know god is good because it says so in a book. Since we have already dealt with that, I will leave it there. That said, we don't get philosophy for this one because there is absolutely nothing that is philosophically necessary for a god to be good. Thee could be an evil god, or a morally neutral god, or simply an amoral god. Theological issues make it even more difficult to know if this god is good or not.

God is as far above human understanding as it gets. We know only what he has revealed. We have no way to judge god's goodness. That being the case, we have no way of evaluating god's claims about his own goodness. We are supposed to be so sinful and broken that our hearts are on evil all the time. Our hearts are deceitful. So we think a lot of things are good that god doesn't, and think a lot of things are not good that he considers good. Since we cannot evaluate god's goodness by our standards of goodness, how do we know he's good? We have no way of knowing for sure.

As near as I can tell, the only way we can know that god is good is that he said so in his book. He said he did some things that we can never verify. Yet Christians seem to take his self-report on faith. That does not seem to be a justifiable move to me. But that's just me.

In that same book are examples of god being what I would describe as evil. The best I could say about him based on his book (and that is if we believed every word of it) is that he is sometimes good and sometimes evil. That does not support the claim that he is all good, or somehow the very definition of goodness. Like any evil tyrant, he has some good in him. Like any good saint, he has some evil in him.

That said, I have no reason to believe the testimony written in a book about the goodness of a god that can't be validated. Another way we might be able to determine is moral orientation is to look at the creation he is said to have delivered. It has lots of good, joy, and delight. Those are very good things indeed. It is also red in tooth and claw. Human nature is neither inherently good or evil. By nature, we do good things and bad things. That doesn't speak to the ultimate goodness of a creator.

Then, there is nature itself. It seems to be decidedly bad at times. We have all kinds of diseases that we didn't create. Childhood cancer seems to be among the most unforgivable things if nature is overseen by a moral god. Beyond birth defects, there are natural disasters that boggle the mind. We didn't create earthquakes, tsunamis, or volcanos. The only thing Christians can say is that these are the results of human sin. But god is the one who set the consequences up for sin, not us.

Christians must assume that their god is the embodiment of goodness. But there is no way for us to know whether or not god really is good. And by our best lights of goodness, he doesn't seem to be. I am not compelled to take his goodness on faith, and see no reason why anyone else should either.

God wants things from you and for you

Another foundation belief about god is that he is personal. He is not distant and uninvolved. He is within his creation and close at hand, working to have a meaningful relationship with you. As a part of that relationship, he wants to do things for you and he wants you to do things for him.

As a part of that relationship language, he has been described as father, husband, friend, judge, rewarder, and executioner. He is said to have a full range of emotions from love, hate, jealousy, the works. He is said to rejoice, rage, and repent. He is like every person you have ever met, but with ultimate power. That is not a particularly reassuring idea.

As with all personal gods, you can please him and displease him. Again, that is not terribly reassuring because it means you have to know exactly what it takes to please him, and what it takes to displease him. Get it wrong, and there is literally hell to pay.

This leads to one of two outcomes, both of which I have experienced many times. The the first outcome is that the believer becomes unjustifiably convinced that they know exactly what is expected of them and those who differ with them are wrong. The other outcome is that they go through a sort of angst-driven madness because they are never certain if they are doing the right things and avoiding the wrong ones.

I see no reason to believe that anyone knows for certain what a god would want. It comes down to it being written down in a book with near magical properties, or they have direct and unmistakable, personal, internal messages from this god. Not only can they not convince others of the truth and accuracy of these messages, they shouldn't be able to convince themselves of it either. The simple fact is that many religious people feel the same way, but the Christian receiving their messages would dismiss the experience of other people as being wrong. But if one person's internal experience can be convincing but wrong, so could yours.

God offers punishments and rewards

It says right in the book that god is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him. In fact, that same passage is prefaced by the order that those who come to him must believe this great truth. I supposed it makes some sense. After all, if you don't believe there is a reward for your lifetime of service and devotion, it might dampen your enthusiasm to do anything for this god.

I recall one Christian arguing that even if there was no reward and god wanted him to suffer horribly then die, he would be happy to do it because of his great love for his god. That doesn't sound like any kind of healthy love I would recommend for anyone. If you knew that your god was going to demand much of you then stiff you for the bill, you should probably get out.

But that leads to the other thing that Christins almost have to believe which is that god is a punisher of those who fail to seek and find him. Perhaps it makes sense to serve a tyrant that you fear just so you can avoid the even worse fate that he has in store for you if you don't. Again, I would just say this doesn't seem like the healthiest of relationships.

Christians seem to be in equal parts confused and confident about the nature of the reward and punishment. It can be boiled down to heaven and hell. But no one is particularly clear on what those things are. While both are described in the Bible as places, some Christians argue that neither are places at all.

It is difficult to calibrate the amount of faith one should poor into the god gamble when the rewards and punishments are so undefined. We can’t even determine if there are any rewards and punishments handed out at all. It is not as if anyone has received their just desserts and returned to confirm it. We have had people lie about it and earn their 15 minutes of fame over those lies. But we have no way to validate that rewards and punishments exist. Despite that, the Hebrews writer just insists that we have to believe god is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. I don't.

God has a plan

Another thing we are expected to know about god is that he has a plan, a plan for good. And you are a part of that sovereign plan. I could boil down Molinism to a simple phrase: God has his reasons. And with that, we are pretty much done with all rational discourse on god and his actions. The Christian has given up trying to understand the mysterious ways of god and have simply settled into righteous complacency. God has his reasons. And that is good enough for them.

Not only does god have his reasons, he has no intention of telling you what they are. It is as if believers think it would be an act of rebellion to ask. Some would say that I want to evaluate god's reasons before deciding to obey his commands. They are exactly right. I do want to evaluate the reasons. If someone tells you to kill your kid, you should be able to know the reasons so you can determine if that action makes sense.

For the record, I can't conceive of any morally good reason to tell someone to kill their kid. Perhaps that child will spread a disease that would destroy humanity. Great. If god knows that, then why did he allow the child to be born in the first place. He does intervene in such matters according to his book. He could just solve the problem before it starts. If it slipped past him, he could do the wet work himself without commanding a parent to do it.

It is always a dereliction of duty to shrug off your moral responsibility and say that some higher power told you to do something awful and that he has his reasons that he refused to share. If you are driving a car and someone tells you that it is okay to change lanes, you still have to look to see for yourself. If something bad happens while executing a no-look turn, the resulting calamity is entirely your responsibility. In court, you cannot offer the defense that someone else told you to turn. It does not matter how great an authority they were. It is always and only your responsibility. If you can't handle that, don't drive.

What Christians seem to know that I don't is that god has his reasons for everything and those reasons are good. In fact, those reasons are perfect. They are often beyond human understanding and you have no right to question them. That is a lot to take on faith.

Conclusion: Agnostic

At the end of the day, I don't know those things and I don't know how to know that which Christians claim to know. As it happens, I also actively don't believe any part of the god proposition. But that is quite beside the point. Part of my unbelief is that I am agnostic. That simply means I don't know and I don't know how to know. The fact that I, and so many others don't know strongly argues for a god that doesn't exist. If the Christian god existed, we really should know it.

See you in the comments...

David Johnson