Of Points and Purposes

Call it a post about the magnificence of God and our complete inability to fully comprehend Him. Because, as you will see, that really is what it is. To an extent, some of what I bring up here will harken back to some things I said in this short post, but for the most part it is its own amalgam of ideas. Mainly, I just want to address some thoughts that have been rolling around in my head for much too long (probably about a year or so... I really need to do this more often). But enough with the preamble, let's get going.

Man has, for all intents and purposes, always seemed to think that his own ability to reason has set him above all else. Reason is the ultimate pinnacle of his evolution. Man even uses Reason to destroy and replace God in his life. At one point, this is not even an allegory, but a truth; think Voltaire or the "Temple of Reason".
Anyway, my point is thus: man sees Reason as the ultimate equalizer. All concepts, ideas, and notions must be able to stand under the wave of philosophical and scientific (I am going to be focusing philosophy-wise in this entry, a science-ish one may come at a later point) questioning. Now, look at the on thing that has, above all else, dominated the realm of philosophical debate: God (and as a quick aside, it is interesting to propose the fact that this God debate has is almost always the Judeo-Christian God. Never do you hear people debating the existence of Greco-Roman gods, or even really Allah. Just an interesting little nugget to think on). God is, without a doubt, the single most popular character in all human history. Love Him or hate Him, He has always been there (as both a concept of debate and in reality!).

Now all of this banter back and forth does serve a purpose, but it is not actually the purpose that you would at first assume. There are truthfully two aspects: a "point" and a "purpose", both of which are twofold. I will address both, but let me first delineate my meaning. The "point" of all this debate is just as you may think it would be. On the one side it is to prove, by use of reason, that God exists. Conversely the other side of the debate seeks to do just the opposite, proving that He does not. And it is through this debate that the "purpose" is eschewed. The purpose on the one side is that we are able to, to a greater extent, understand the ways that God works and just who He is. Whereas the opposite purpose is the ultimate raising of oneself as the final judge, thereby finding justification, and in fact validation, for a self-centered life (and perhaps this seems a bit harsh at this point, but let me know what you think once you finish the whole of the post). So, all of this introduction is well and good, but let's get to the meat and potatoes.

The Point (part 1): Proving that God does not exist
I think I am going to take these in the reverse order of their original listing, so first I want to look at the side who's point stands against my own; to prove God is nonexistent. Frankly, I feel that this point of the debate is pretty silly, but that is only personal opinion and bias so pay it no heed for now. So yes, I understand that there have been many tragic episodes throughout history in the name of religion (I present for your consideration The Crusades or The Spanish Inquisition), but you cannot really say that humanity as a whole is kinder without it either (hello Hitler, Stalin, etc). This may be part of the reasoning that is put forth as to why this point is pursued, but take that away and what have you? A search for "truth" after the removal of "truth". What room would there be for any absolutism in a randomly worked together universe?Much of what I see on this side of the room is to simply establish man (and ultimately oneself) as the highest being in existence.
Listen, to attempt to disprove God is an exercise in pride. Nothing more. You are not making the world a better place by attempting to prove the reason for millions of peoples' hopes, and desires to help their fellow man, is not real. You simply, at the end of the day, are trying to be able to say "I was right and you were wrong, so there!" A bit childish and naive to be honest.
This, of course, all ties into the purpose that I will come to. But, for now, if I seem a bit accusatory or narrow-minded I apologize, but I cannot see much of a point, outside of what I have stated, to this endeavor. Perhaps you would say it is to free men from the "burden of religion" so he can expend his energy on learning and other such pursuits (though to take a quick second, following God by no means excludes these pursuits, but I would argue quite often enhances them). But then let me ask you, if you believe what you argue, why are you putting yourself under that "burden" as well by spending so much of your time on it, instead of going out to these other pursuits? Who are you truly trying to convince by spending all this time arguing against God; us or yourself?
Whereby the purpose comes, so let me get on to that.

The Purpose (part 1): Self Justification
Now, the purpose of arguing against the existence of God is such that it has a couple aspects to look at separately. Primarily, it is what I have already stated, that of a self-centered life. In a world without God, you may help others, reach out and establish great works, or even perform som deed that saves the world. But in the end any edification, and any glory, is directed straight (and only) to you. You are the primary target of your actions. Your life is about you, and only for you. There is no one to thank, no one that you pass the honor on to (quick aside: this is by no way meaning to belittle the truly selfless acts people do still commit even if they do not believe in God. Mean and women give their lives every day for the sake of causes such as freedom. This post is looking in a purely philosophical sense at the entire story of one's life. Whereas the follower of God seeks to make their life about and for their Lord, those outside of that have a story that cannot reflect beyond oneself).
The other main aspect, and a slightly less concrete part of the purpose, is that of arguing towards a less complex existence. Think of it in this way: without the existence of God you have so many fewer questions that are as difficult to answer (I. E. the problem of pain). There becomes no need either to search for the presence of any meaning, because if all we are is the product of some random chance occurrence, then the level of meaning in the universe is simply zero (one of my favorite quotes by Lewis fits here, "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning"). Thusly, the purpose of the man arguing against God is to provide for himself a less complex, less accountable life (realize please, that the purpose is a meant as a less distinct effect of the pursuer's point).

The Point (part 2): Proving that God exists
On the flip-side is, obviously, to use this great gift of the ability to reason in order to prove that God does, in fact, exist. Now, this is all well and good, and quite a few decent arguments have come out of this (and some that are a bit harder to grasp, such as the Ontological Argument) but there is not yet a strictly philosophical concept that fully and without argument proves God (there is really so so much more to get into here that I just can't, for the sake of time and the flow of this post. But suffice to say that it is because of this that the argument continues), nor do I believe there ever will be. Granted, there are a great many theologian/philosophers that have put forth great philosophical evidences for the existence of God, and it is on these which we can continue to build. But, in the end, it comes to a point of acceptance versus the struggle for complete understanding, a concept that Kant and Kierkegaard both ascribed to (more on that in another post perhaps).
Our point is to argue towards the existence of God, but it is an important fact to remember that the very nature of the Judeo-Christian God is that He is non-quantifiable, He is beyond the reach of reason. This is due, mostly to the fact that He created us and exists on such a different level than us. We cannot begin to truly understand His nature until we meet Him face to face, and spend our days in His presence.  Beyond that, there is much more that must be considered with the nature of space and time, but this post is not really focused there. Because of how far above us He is, and because we live in a primarily physical realm with only spiritual influence, we cannot fully understand God, and we cannot fully contain Him within our musings. God is not completely mind-wrappable (I know, not a real term, but I believe the concept is relayed so I am going with it), and it is because of this that we cannot fully reach our point; thus we have our purpose.

The Purpose (part 2): A further understanding of God
If by this point anything seems a bit convoluted, I apologize, but we are on the last chunk so stay strong!
Alright, so the way in which we have consistently sought to bring about evidence unto our point has led to an inevitable conclusion in our purpose, namely the deepening of our understanding of the being of God (and the deepening assurance that we have an infantile understanding, with so far to go). By the very nature of the way we grow, we are always learning, and always seeking to know more. The thing is, with God we can never be finished learning, never fully understand, never be finished seeking; there is always more to discover. Think of it in the words of Dante, "Rather, as I grew worthier to see, the more I looked, the more unchanging semblance appeared to change with every change in me. Within the depthless deep and clear existence of that abyss of light three circles shone--three in color, one in circumference." [Paradiso, Canto 33, lines 112-117, translation by John Ciardi]
Furthermore, our approach is much more than for the sake of learning alone, but it is much more experiential than that. You see, we seek more than just a sterile academice understanding of who God is, because we know that there is a relationship aspect to the pursuit of God. No, our search for understanding must have a much more visceral, meaningful approach. Now, one of the foremost parts of this purpose is to simply know the being of God. But where we run into difficulty with using only human reason (remember; lean not on your own understanding) is that the mind of God is so far beyond what we can comprehend. In fact, it is constricting to say that God sees anything the same way as we do. We are bound by the limitations of a physical universe, and we cannot search for a God who also fits within the constraints of this same universe (otherwise we search for a God who has limited Himself).
Our God is so much more. He exists outside of time and space, with the power to bring about whatever His will may be (think omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence). But as far as He is above us, He also is so willing to be with us, and to communicate with us (for some neat posts on prayer by a friend of mine, see here, then here, then lastly here). So in the end we find ourselves doing all we can to provide evidences towards the existence of God, and in reaching for that point we find the purpose of drawing closer to knowing and understanding Him. 


Our ability to reason really is remarkable, and I think that it can lead us to know a good deal of the way that God works, but it is not our only resource, nor should we treat it as such. Remember that we have also been given His word, and an unmatchable connection with Him through Christ and through the Holy Spirit in us.