Desperately Seeking God:
A Philosophical Conversation between a Thoughtful Christian and an Inquiring Agnostic
Michael: Thomas. No one answered the door so I let myself in. Are you alright?
Thomas: Why certainly, Michael, why do you ask?
Michael: Well, for one thing you’re sitting here staring into space seemingly oblivious to all that is around you.
Thomas: Oblivious to all that is around me? Not at all. In fact, quite to the contrary. I am keenly aware of what is around me. I’m just trying to understand that which is around me.
Michael: Oh boy, here we go, Thomas the philosopher, Thomas the thinker. Now what’s on your mind?
Thomas: The same thing that’s always on my mind, Michael, I’m trying to figure out the true nature of God, that’s all.
Michael: That’s all? Well, I guess that’s progress.
Thomas: Progress?
Michael: Sure. I thought you claimed to be an agnostic. At least now you are admitting that God does, indeed, exist.
Thomas: Not sure I’ve progressed all that much. Logic tells me that every creation requires a creator, every effect requires a cause. And, lacking any other label, I’m willing to put the name God on such. But, this concept of God brings to me more questions than answers.
Michael: Like what?
Thomas: Well, this creator, this cause could be nothing more than basic chemistry and basic physics coming together with energy to randomly create all that we see and experience. And, if that is true, from where did these chemicals and energy come? That’s the question I would put to my atheist friends.
Michael: Well, as one of your religious friends, I can be of little use there. For me, the answers are clear.
Thomas: For many of my atheist friends, the answers, too, are simple and clear. Michael, I wear my agnosticism with pride. Theists and atheist have one important thing in common; they both have made up their minds. It is only the agnostic who remains intellectually engaged.
Michael: Alright, Thomas, engage me. Ask your questions, I’ll be happy to supply whatever answers I can.
Thomas: Terrific. Alright, let’s start with this. The nature of God, what is it?
Michael: What do you mean?
Thomas: Well, is God a loving God?
Michael: Absolutely
Thomas: Then, how can such a loving God have allowed such horrible things as the holocaust? Why would a loving God put up with genocide, disease, starvation of innocent children, natural disasters that destroy and kill, allow babies to be born with gross deformities, permit child neglect and abuse?
Michael: Thomas, attempting to follow the teachings of Jesus, even though we fall far short in our efforts to do so, does not bring the promise of a trouble free world and life without tribulation. Jesus makes this point clear in John 16:33. “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In this world ye shall have tribulation; but be of great cheer, I have overcome the world.”
Thomas: Well, friend, that passage may bring you comfort, although I’m not sure how. It leaves my question unanswered. Is all this unavoidable tribulation the work of a loving God?
Michael: My comfort comes from the eternal rewards in the next world not avoidance of the trials of life in this. But let me try to address your dilemma this way.
My view is God has given us life and a wonderful gift to go with it. That gift is choice, freedom to choose, freewill. But, with freewill comes responsibility to make correct choices. And that’s why having a solid foundation of religion and a set of moral rules is important. If we had no freewill, we would merely be a puppet in someone else’s story and life would have no point.
Thomas: So, in order for us to have purpose, God has given us freewill even though God knows we will likely make some horrific choices that will cause pain, suffering, even death to innocent people. And, what about all those natural disasters that cause human suffering? What possible purpose is derived from that?
Michael: You can’t have one gift without the other consequence, even though the other consequence can be horrible. Look, God created gravity. Gravity is a wonderful thing. If it wasn’t for gravity everything unattached to earth would go flying off into space. And, eventually the earth itself would begin to crumble. But with the gift of gravity comes the consequences of gravity. If, for instance, you lean too far out a window on the 50th floor of a building, you will fall to your death. You can’t have the gift without the consequence. You can’t have the wonders of nature without the consequences that result from the rules of nature. The power of God has given us an orderly world and universe.
Thomas: But if God is as all powerful couldn’t He have created a world that contains the gifts without the negative consequences?
Michael: No, because He created a logical world with basic rules of physics and chemistry, rules that science is still discovering and trying to explain. As our understanding of these established rules improves so does our ability to predict outcomes.. In other words, in order for us to have any purpose, we need choice. And, in order for us to make correct choices, we need to be able to predict the consequences of those choices. And, in order for us to be able to accurately predict those consequences there must be a fixed set of unchanging rules that we can rely on to occur. Our challenge is to better understand these rules.
Thomas: So, you’re telling me God has created a logical set of physical principles that are fixed and unchanging and necessary in order for us to live in a reliable and predictable fashion. You’re saying we must accept the negative with the positive in order to have the positive. God is not going to intervene and change these rules even though the negative can cause terrible things to happen to good people. That’s the way it is and we must accept it?
Michael: That’s right.
Thomas: But, a reading of the Bible contradicts that. According to scripture He has defied these basic principles over and over again. He parted the Red Sea . He created a human birth outside the natural process of reproduction. He gave Jesus the ability to walk on water, raise the dead, change water into wine. The whole notion of miracles, which you and your religious friends insist do occur, requires the belief that God will, on occasion, intervene and alter those fixed unchangeable rules of nature.
Michael: Okay, I can see how you would see the notion of miracles being a contradiction to a world of fixed universal principles. And, I must admit that on this I do part company with many of my religious brethren. You see, I don’t define miracles the way most of my religious friends do. I don’t believe that they are acts of God defying natural law. The best way I can explain my view is to adopt the view of St. Augustine
Thomas: So you’re position is that all miracles—parting of the sea, walking on water, changing water into wine—all have a natural explanation? We just don’t know what the explanations is, right?
Michael: Right.
Thomas: Now you have to admit such a premise seems highly illogical.
Michael: Yes, I realize that. Look, here’s the best way I can explain it. Take you’re dog. You have a very bright dog. You can teach him a variety of tricks. Some dogs can be trained to do some amazing things. But, no matter how smart you’re dog is, any dog for that matter, there’s no way you can make a dog understand the nature of the solar system, the concept of our planet rotating, the notion of our earth orbiting around the sun, the principle of the seasons. The dog recognizes that sometimes it’s dark outside. Sometimes it’s bright. Some days are hot and warm. Some days are cold and the ground is covered in snow. That’s all the dog can appreciate. I am suggesting that our mind, as developed as it is, is similarly deficient. Our mental capacity has a similar relationship to understanding all that is in nature. In fact, I believe the dog’s mind is closer to our mind than our mind is to knowing the ultimate truths of our universe. And, that is when faith kicks in. We must come to realize that we can never know all. Don’t worry about it. Don’t fret. Surrender to your faith.
Thomas: Just believe and everything will be okay.
Michael: Exactly.
Thomas: I’m sorry, Michael, but to me that’s a cop out and more than slightly insulting. You’re saying if something doesn’t make sense don’t waste your energies in fruitless intellectual exercises. That’s like telling me to disengage my mind. It would be like saying, if you’re bothered by seeing pain and injustice just look away and have faith. If you hear ugliness being expressed, just plug your ears and have faith. You talked earlier about these wonderful God given gifts, then when the thinking and perceiving becomes taxing, turn off the gifts and surrender to faith. Frankly, this is the argument I get from my religious friends when they have run out of answers to my questions. I credit you for having gone as long in this discussion as you have. But, it all comes down to, sorry, I have no reasonable answer so, have faith!
Michael: Well, I’m sorry Thomas, but faith does play a major role in my religious beliefs. I can’t be expected to share my views on this topic without bringing it in to the discussion. I can assure you I do not abandon science and reason in an effort to protect my faith. I take science and reason as far as I am able. But there is a point beyond which I cannot travel. That is when my faith kicks in. I guess the best advice I have is for you to think outside the box because our boxes of reason and logic are limited.
Thomas: Wait a minute, I should think outside the box!
Michael. Yes. Think outside the box.
Thomas: Michael, you’re the one thinking inside the box. In fact, I would argue you’re thinking inside boxes that are inside boxes.
Michael: How do you mean?
Thomas: First you’re thinking inside the box that claims a supreme being is responsible for all that exists. Then, within that box you are in the box that claims this God is a loving, purposeful God that interacts with Man. Then, within that box you’re in the box that believes this God sent his son to die for our sins. Then in that box you have your particular denominational box with which you belong. And, I would guess even within that denominational box you belong to some grouping of a particular set of orthodox beliefs. So, not only are you thinking within a box, you’re thinking within a box that’s within a box that’s within a box that’s within a box that’s within a box.
Michael: Well, obviously, if one has a set of beliefs one can argue that they belong in a box containing those beliefs. So, by your definition, believing in anything requires being within a box. But, you wouldn’t suggest that we should be void of any beliefs at all would you?
Thomas: No, of course not. Remember, you’re the one accusing me of not thinking outside the box. I would only point out that as an agnostic I’m willing to consider the merits of not only all of your boxes of beliefs, but the many boxes of beliefs existing in other boxes inconsistent with your beliefs.
Michael: Thomas, when I challenged you to think outside the box I was asking you to accept that there is much that you don’t know. There is much none of us knows. So, rather than reject that which is considered miraculous because it doesn’t make sense instead accept the possibility that it does make sense, but we just don’t have all the information. And, we can then proceed within a foundation of faith.
Thomas: Michael, I’m sorry. I have a difficult time accepting the fact that Jesus did change water into wine using some natural process that we all could perform if we just had some mysterious additional information. That sounds to me all the so called miracles were just a trick, a magician’s illusion.
Look, the bottom line question for me is this: the miracles described in scripture either happened or didn’t happen. And either way that question is answered places Christian orthodoxy with a difficult problem.
Michael: How so?
Thomas: Well, if the miracles didn’t happen then you have some major errors in biblical scripture and serious doubts as to the divinity of Christ. And if, indeed, the miracles did occur you have evidence of God’s intervention into our lives. And, you are left with the perplexing question as to why would God choose to intervene in order to ensure sufficient wine at a wedding festival but chose not to intervene in the gassing of six million Jews during World War II? To me that suggests an odd set of priorities.
Michael: First, the miracles performed by Jesus were not mere illusions that anyone could perform. Jesus, I believe, was and is divine. He has knowledge of certain truths far beyond our comprehension. Again, like comparing our minds to that of a dog’s. And through His divinity He could perform feats that to mere mortals seem impossible. And, these miracles were not examples of a God who intervenes whimsically into our lives. The miracles told of in scripture served two specific purposes. One purpose was for those witnessing the act to believe in the Lord. And the second purpose was for those present to believe in His word. Also, in the book of Mark, Jesus promised His disciples that they, too, would have the ability to perform miracles as evidence of the power and the truth of the word they were to preach.
Now, as to why God is not still carrying out miracles to save us from despots like Hitler I return to my earlier point that if we are to have purpose, if our life is to have meaning we must be free to make choices knowing and appreciating that those choices will have predictable consequences. And, if we are to enjoy the fruits of a logical universe, we must have that universe behave in a predictable fashion as well. We can’t expect God or Jesus to be constantly intervening whenever someone’s actions turns out badly. And, to further complicate things, one person’s choice may turn out favorable for some while unfavorable for others. For whom does God intervene on behalf? My son needs a kidney transplant to live. In order for my son to have a kidney transplant, he needs a donor. In order to have a donor, someone with a compatible kidney must die. How can righteousness have any meaning if no matter what we do God will make it right?
Thomas: Am I hearing you right? Miracles no longer occur? That notion seems to contradict a lot of what I hear from others of faith.
Michael: I realize my view here may be at odds with a lot of my fellow travelers. But, I believe that true miracles—that is, acts of God that supersede natural law—do not exist. And, even if you were to believe that the miracles found in scripture were supernatural—which I don’t—a case can be made from scripture that these miracles are no longer available. For the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians Chapters 12 and 13 that these gifts would in time pass away. I believe that events that people ascribe as being a miraculous are, as I stated earlier, merely events for which the witness lacks all the information.
Thomas: Okay, Michael, you make a good and, I would add, necessary argument for why God doesn’t and shouldn’t intervene and perform miracles capriciously or selectively. Although, I doubt many believers would agree with you which is why I feel their position lacks credibility. So, what about prayer?
Michael: What about prayer?
Thomas: Well, it seems to me that a prayer can be defined as a request to God for divine intervention. If God is answering one person’s prayer and not another’s, aren’t you still confronted with the same conundrum? God is intervening here, but not there. Jane’s prayer is answered, but Bob’s is not. God is intervening. And, he is being selective in His intervention.
Michael: Maybe God is answering every prayer. It just might be that for some the answer is no.
Thomas: Okay, I’ve heard that before, and I’m not impressed. First, distinguish for me the difference between a prayer for which the answer is no and a prayer for which there is no answer. There is no distinction. There is no difference. Besides, if God answers the prayer and the answer is no you still have a God playing favorites.
Michael: Well, I may surprise you here, Thomas, because my attitude on prayer differs from many of my fellow believers. I, like you, am troubled by the notion that God sits on high fielding our prayers like a trial judge deciding who gets the “yes” verdict and who gets the “no.” I don’t see God playing favorites, allowing person A to be cured of cancer while person B is not just because God was more impressed with A’s prayer than He was of B’s; or God felt A was more worthy of an extended life than was B.
Thomas: So, you are not one who believes in the power of prayer?
Michael: Oh, quite the contrary. I do believe in the power of prayer. In fact, I believe it to be very powerful.
Thomas: How so?
Michael: First, you have to ask yourself what is the true purpose of prayer? For me it’s not just asking for favors. But rather, it is a way to worship. It is a method for giving praise, to give thanks, to be aware of God’s presence. And, to me, the end result is a feeling of euphoria and gratitude. As Paul wrote in Thessalonians, “Be joyful always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.”
Thomas: So, for you the power of prayer is just a function of feeling good after having said thank you?
Michael: No, it’s more than that. I think you can have prayers of supplication when you make a request for yourself. For example, I think it wise to pray for strength in forgiving someone who has wronged you. I think it proper to pray that you can be more understanding, more caring, more loving, more giving. And, by praying in this manner your mind becomes focused on these goals and, as a result, you are more likely to attain them.
Thomas: Okay, I get it. But, some people achieve the same thing through meditation, through positive thinking, through visualization.
Michael: True. The difference is my process is directed through what I believe to be a higher power, while your examples may be through another thought process. But, yes, the results may be the same.
Thomas: But, if I understand you, you don’t believe in the prayer of intercession where God moves in and causes something to happen or not happen.
Michael: Right. I have difficulty with the notion that events are manufactured by God for the benefit of some to the possible detriment of others because, as you stated earlier, good things seem to happen to bad people while bad things happen to the good. Now, my fellow believers might argue that I just don’t have all the facts. That it is all just. But, when I see innocent children starving to death, being abused, living in pain and sorrow, I think I have all the facts I need.
Thomas: Okay Michael, I can accept prayer’s power within the context you have presented it. And, as you admitted, it falls a considerable distance from many religious followers with whom I have come in contact.
And, I accept that there are rules of nature. Whether or not these rules were created by a God as described by many of our religions, though, seems to big a step for me to take.
Look, to me religion is the creation of man. Religion serves a purpose for man—fulfills needs of man that would be unfulfilled were it not present.
Michael: What purpose?
Thomas: Actually, I think religion achieves four purposes for man.
First, it allows man to explain the unexplainable. It gives us an explanation for how we got here, from where did we come. It explains the origin of the creation. Now this is where science and religion often come into conflict because science has dispelled many of religions’ earlier beliefs of the creation. So often religions choose to simply reject the science when it contradicts with earlier beliefs. Now, I can accept faith when there is an absence of facts. But when one holds to a belief that is based on a faith that is in direct contradiction to known and accepted facts, then that faith can only be described as ignorance.
If you really want to study the creation of God-- however you choose to define God-- you must study science, not theology. Science is the school that works to discover and explain those fixed rules that you described. And, it does so using very strict methods in order to best ensure accuracy. And, yet many who wear their religious robes speak loudly with disdain toward science. In deed, much of the history of The Church was filled with denouncing and punishing those who worked to cast light on God’s rules of nature. You see, faith requires hope while science requires facts. And facts should always trump hope.
Michael: Well, yes, some religion has done some negative things over the years.
Thomas: Some religions, some negative things? I would submit virtually all religions have done a lot of horrible things, and continue to do so in the name of what they consider righteous. The crusades, the Inquisitions. Religion has often preached my way or you die! And even today saying AIDS is God’s revenge on homosexuals. The destruction of New Orleans
Michael: But, Thomas, you can’t blame the worthiness of a theology or a philosophy by those who misuse and misrepresent it.
Thomas: I agree, you can’t. But I would argue that those with whom I disagree are not the few on the religious fringe. Rather, they would be considered by many as mainstream.
Michael: How so?
Thomas: Well, let’s begin with those Christians who are certain the Bible is the inerrant word of God. It is a document written by the hand of man with the true inspiration of God.
Michael: I don’t believe that.
Thomas: I know you don’t Michael, but you have to admit a lot, a very lot, of your Christian brothers and sisters do.
Michael: True.
Thomas: And, for them there is no room for discussion. What bothers me is how so many can have this view despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It makes me seriously doubt either their intelligence or sanity.
Michael: Now, I think your being a bit over dramatic.
Thomas: Over dramatic? Look, first there’s the issue of all the contradictions in the Bible. When confronted with this they refuse to accept the presence of any contradictions. Anyone who says the Bible does not contain contradictions has either not read the Bible, or doesn’t understand what was read.
Michael: Alright, there are contradictions, but nothing that really changes the central message.
Thomas: Some contradictions are perhaps minor. Like, for example, in the telling of the story of Jesus’ birth in the Gospels. In Matthew we’re told the Baby Jesus was visited by wise men. But in Luke there’s no wise men visiting, but instead shepherds. Then there’s the famous cleansing of the temple story. In one book it happens in the first week of Jesus’s ministry. In another, it occurs a week before he is crucified. And then…
Michael: Alright, Thomas, I concede there are discrepancies in the Bible. As I said, I’m not one who believes the Bible was written by God. It was written by men, several men. And, these accounts were decades after the events in which they described and described by writers who did not even witness the events first hand. And the stories had been handed down orally, at first, then written, translated into other languages, then copied over and over through several generations. We’re on the same page.
But, continue. What are the other needs that you feel religion fulfills.
Thomas: Okay. The second need for religion is to give us purpose, to make us feel important. If we believed we were merely the product of random cosmic physical energy, we would tend to believe we were mere accidents and flukes of nature making us feel inconsequential. But, if we believed we were created by a powerful and loving creator made in His own image, now we have purpose. We are special.
The third need religion provides is to help us deal with our mortality. The thought of dying is not a pleasant thought. But, if we can believe that we do not cease living, that there is life after death and it is a life in paradise, then mortality becomes less of a problem.
Finally, religion helps us come to terms with what seems to be an unjust world. Bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad people. Life seems too often to be unfair. But, if we believe justice and salvation will come in the kingdom of Heaven
Michael: Well, Thomas, I believe religions, at least my religion, do fulfill those purposes. But, you can’t conclude that because a certain theology gives us hope and peace of mind that the theology is flawed and in error can you?
Thomas: No, of course not. I’m just saying man would create such theologies regardless of what the absolute truths may or may not be. That should, at the very least, give us pause as to their certainty.
Michael: I have no problem with giving pause. I have no problem with having doubts. In fact, I believe a healthy skepticism and internal thought can actually lead to a stronger sense of faith. But, as I always do, I come back to faith…not faith that contradicts with known scientific facts…not faith that is absence of reason…but faith that fills the void where science and reason are not yet present.
Thomas: Okay, Michael, let me challenge your faith with a theory I find absolutely intriguing. You asked me to think outside the box. Now, I’m going to ask you to do the same.
Michael: Alright.
Thomas: I’ve been reading about what has been called a neuro-theological experimentation. Some scientifically conducted research has pointed to the theory that a person’s belief in God is actually embedded in a specific portion of the brain in the right temporal lobe. Researchers refer to it as the God Spot.
Michael: The God Spot?
Thomas: That’s right. Now hear me out. The theory, again based on preliminary experimentation, suggests that ones belief in God is hard wired in our brains. In other words, ones belief in God and ones degree of spirituality is determined by how developed this spot is.
Think about it. Some of us are very religious. Others of us aren’t. Some claim to hear the voice of God, see angels, and feel the Lord’s presence. This theory would suggest these feelings; these perceptions are very much real for these people. And, this region of the brain can be stimulated. It would also explain why people, even those who are not particularly religious, do feel some spiritual uplifting after attending a religious ceremony filled with music, pageantry, and an inspiring message. Others get these highs when communing with nature, listening to a symphony, or experiencing some other form of inspirational art. In fact, one scientist developed what he called the God helmet which, when placed on a subject’s head, stimulated this region. The result, subjects reported spiritual feelings including specific visions and voices.
If this theory turned out to be true, what would that do to your undying faith?
Michael: Well, that’s a lot to take in. And, it’s a lot of theorizing and speculation.
Thomas: True. But for the sake of our discussion, what would that do to your faith if it was determined to be true. Where would your faith be if it was shown God was literally just in your head?
Michael: Well, Thomas, I agree with what you said earlier that faith where there is an absence of fact is acceptable whereas faith that contradicts facts is ignorance. So, if all this speculation were found to be true, I would adjust my beliefs and my faith accordingly.
Thomas: How so.
Michael: Well, if it was determined that the brain is the source of our spirituality and our communion with God it wouldn’t necessarily say to me there was no master creator. Just as I believe that the theory of evolution can be the work of God, why can’t I also say the God spot is the work of God? As long as it serves us the same way, it matters not where God physically resides. Perhaps this best explains the concept of the Holy Spirit that we are taught resides in each of us. If the spot gives us moral direction and stability, then I say, “Praise the Lord.” I say to myself, how can I stimulate this spot in others? How can I share with others this wondrous feeling? For me, if the speculation were to be true, the God spot functions in much the same way as our kidneys, lungs, and liver. They are all there for a purpose. If someone’s kidney was failing, wouldn’t you want to find a cure? So, if someone’s God spot is failing to function wouldn’t you want to find a way to transform it?
Thomas: So you are saying that you are willing to adjust your faith based on scientific evidence? You are telling me that you would only employ faith where there is, indeed, an absence of fact?
Michael: Yes, that’s right.
Thomas: Now, you know that would put considerable distance between you and the majority of other believers.
Michael: Why do you say that?
Thomas: I recently read that a poll conducted in 2006 showed that if science contradicted a person’s religious beliefs, 64% stated that they would reject the science in favor of their faith. In other words, the majority of religious followers would choose what you and I have agreed to be ignorance over enlightenment. To me that’s not only sad, it is dangerous.
Michael: Well, with that I agree.
Thomas: And, Michael, even your somewhat progressive point of view troubles me.
Michael: In what way?
Thomas: While I admire your willingness to move your faith to accommodate newly discovered facts, you are admitting that your faith needs to be moved. Doesn’t that make you question your faith to begin with?
Michael: Not really. It is just an admission that I’m willing to learn and grow.
Thomas: But your growth must be thrust upon you by science. What if everyone took your position? This is my faith. I believe in it. I trust it. Unless, of course, you can show me I’m wrong.
Michael: We all have to begin with a belief in something, don’t we?
Thomas: Yes. But my belief is in the pursuit of truth, not in the complacency of faith. I believe each of us must challenge our beliefs rather than wait for someone to do it for us. Typically it takes a lot more evidence to change a mind that has settled on some erroneous fact than to push a mind that is open. I believe innovation requires the fixing of things not broken.
Michael: How’s that?
Thomas: Those who say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” are expressing complacency with the status quo. They are saying if it works leave it alone. But the innovator is never satisfied with the status quo. To the innovator the fact that something works does not mean it can’t work better, more efficiently. The innovator is always tinkering, always exploring always searching.
Michael: So, what’s that to do with my faith?
Thomas: For you, your faith isn’t broken so you are complacent with it. For me, faith needs to always be questioned in order for learning and growth to take place. You wait for facts to change your beliefs. I seek facts to determine if my beliefs are worthy.
Michael: Well, all I can say in defense is that my faith gives me peace of mind. It gives me joy.
Thomas: I congratulate you on that, Michael. While I don’t share your peace of mind, my searching for answers gives me the feeling of knowledge. To each his own.
Michael: Yes, Thomas, to each his own.
