But God was not in the wind....

In my last post, I related that I had been reading and considering Western, primarily Christian, religion from the point of "the philosophers." I reviewed the classical "proofs" for the existence of God, the problem with thinking of a God who "exists" the question of "grace and freedom" and, most importantly in the case against theism, the "problem of evil." I also re-read the biblical book of Ecclesiastes and portions of the biblical book of Job. Although I cannot say that I "found the answer," in these readings, I was perhaps able to shape the questions in my mind a bit better, and I suppose that I can say that I am "better off" in an intellectual sense by this re-introduction to the philosophy of religion.

What seems most likely to me, however, is that a quest to find a "God of the Philosophers" looks to be one that will not conclusively satisfy. In greater and lesser forms, the philosophical discussion of religion has been going on now for some thousands of years, and yet, the "grand unified theory" has eluded us. In the general text that I read as the centerpiece of my recent study, the possibility of a "soft rationalist" approach that looked at the "whole case of evidence" was offered as a "reasonable" approach to the problem of religious philosophy. This "case" would be formed of many strands or types of evidence. It could include logical argument, consideration of history and historical precedent, scientific research, divine revelation and, perhaps most importantly for my thoughts today, the contribution of "religious experience."

To my present state, it seems that the "non-experiential" portions of the case for religion create only the possibility for "god" and "religion." They do not, however, in themselves constitute a conclusive case, but allow, perhaps, a cautious curiosity. The problem, to my mind, however, is that without some sort of "experience" that "illuminates" religious practice and adherence, it remains rather abstract in the sense that I would have to make a quasi-catechetical response such as "but what does this mean for me?" Furthermore, it would seem that the "arguments" that might be advanced from religious experience would be either a "cumulative" case based on the experiences of others that we know both historically and in the present or a "conclusive" experience that I myself have that is convincing/transformational, or perhaps some lesser amalgam of both.

While staring at my bookshelves, I noted that I still had a largely-unfinished copy of Thomas Merton's biography, The Seven Story Mountain. (I know, I should have finished it years ago.) As I succumbed to the "tolle lege" that this seemed to suggest to me and began to read, however, I immediately encountered some of the less-attractive aspects of Merton, such as his "anti-protestant" bias and his immediate recourse to such conceptions as the mystery of the "non-bloody sacrifice of the mass" as the pre-eminent exemplum of divine love. Clearly, having read some of the rest of Merton, I understand that his religious experience was intense and transformational. But does an experience that leads to so many "traditional" conclusions (that I cannot accept) really inform the search for me? How am I to judge a religious experience that occurs in a context of a "traditional" concept of Christianity, when it would seem that, if the traditional concept is untenable, how is it that the "experience" is so "consistent" with it? Somehow, it would seem that my "search" for evidence in the historical experience of others is going to continue to be problematic.

As I consider, however, the other possibility, the experience that I, myself, have, I wonder what sort of experience I would find "convincing" at this stage? If I have discounted the possibility of a theistic god who could perform miracles that would "invade" the world of "natural law" and create a "special exception" for some purpose, then even "if I saw someone rise from the dead," I would have to consider questioning it. Should such a thing truly happen, then would that force me to concede and return to the theistic camp? What would be my experience of religion, then? It would be perhaps, I would suppose, one of pragmatism. Something like, "Well, heck, all that Christian dogma and doctrine really is true. Doesn't it suck that God (I would have to re-capitalize) allows such human suffering? But he holds all the cards and makes the rules, so I had better just shut up and walk the walk like a good boy." If then, miracles are "out" for the time being, then what "experience" would really "convince" me? I have dealt enough with deluded and sick minds to understand the power of want that can create internal experiences and convictions that, from my external point of view, seem clearly erroneous or delusional, that I would mistrust the argument from "feeling" the presence of "god" in "my heart" or some such conception. Again, how could I know that it was not the product of just some wishful thinking on my part?

It would seem, at this point, that the "experience" would have to be something rather un-expected. Since I know the biblical story of the "but God was not in the wind/storm/etc" and the "still small voice," it does rather suggest that at least some people got their "experience" in a form that neither they nor others might have expected. It is hard, however, to "live today" in the "hope" that some such transformational or "convincing" experience may come my way. Should I be like the "wise virgins" who "keep their lamps trimmed" waiting for the bridegroom's appearance? What would be the consequences of a life oriented to "waiting" for this sort of experience? How does one behave in the meantime? Does one simply keep "dipping one's finger in the holy water" and hope that one will "end up believing?" Does is make more sense to adopt a thoroughly secular orientation and leave religion as a "possibly provable" theory that we simply at this point do not have enough evidence at this point to affirm or refute?

Such problems!

Jeffrey Shy
("winded" in Arizona)
Mesa, Arizona