(Originally written July 25, 2006 in Book 5)
At this break (end of chapter X of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy) I have a thought.
The existence of God is taken by most people who believe in it only on face value. Is it correct to assume the existence of God? What proofs, real evidence do we have for accepting it? I find the ontological proof for God as thoroughly lacking. It does not convince me at all.
I can state that I have felt His presence overwhelm me in Church, but since I deny that all men who speak in tongues are doing so through the Holy Spirit physically overwhelming them, I leave myself open to the same attack. Speaking in tongues (gibberish, non-sensical language) is a point of contention with me. I interpret the events of a Pentecost as a group of preachers speaking in their own language until the Holy Spirit entered them. At this point they began speaking real, human languages that they had not learned. Thus, men (Jews) from all over the world witnessed a group of mostly uneducated Hebrews speaking in a bunch of different, yet real human languages.
This view leads me to believe that the spiritual gift of tongues is a gift of linguistics. Some individuals are naturally gifted in learning foreign languages. All men and women can learn a number of languages, but I believe that certain individuals possess a natural capability to learn them with more ease, just like a gifted athlete can work on his body to produce an enormous, incredible sport talent.
But, Paul writes about how he can speak in the tongue (language) of men and angels. Paul, was an educated Jew and a Roman citizen. This leads me to believe that he knew at least Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek/Latin. His knowledge and disputation/rhetoric while in Athens strengthens my belief that he knew Greek. i do not know what other languages or dialects were spoken in Tarsus or other areas, but I believe that through his travels and education he probably achieved some level of fluency in other human languages as well. This covers the tongues of man, but what about the tongues of angels?
I believe that when one, who is full of the Holy Spirit, has meditated in prayer and focused wholly on God, that the Holy Spirit's groans and utterances can be focused on. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in the heart or soul of a man then I would find it hard to believe that it is not in constant dialogue with the Father.
But as the Holy Spirit does not fully overwhelm man's own soul (ad body and mind) men even with the Holy Spirit are constantly distracted and cannot audibly or mentally hear the groans of the Holy Spirit. But when a man focuses to hear this dialogue I believe that the experience must be neck-hair raising and cause chills over the whole body.
The realization of having such immense and unimaginable power inside you and advocating to the Almighty God on your behalf must be awe inspiring. Mentally every Christians 'knows' this is happening, but to vividly experience it is beyond merely knowing it. This leads me to the conclusion that the gift of tongues is two gifts:
1) A predisposition to linguistics which must be cultivated except in rare, miraculous instances.
2) A spiritual awareness or experience of the Holy Spirit's dialogue with the Almighty God.
The first can lead to many consequences. It can produce pride in the individual's own mind, a sense of accomplishment. It can be used for their own gain or it can be used for God. The second can only lead to one consequence: an emotional, spiritual, mental and physical sensation of God. in the moment of experience the senses of the mind, body and soul all experience the same thing: God. It is overwhelming. I believe that this happens legitimately (actually an experience of God) and can produce a vocal or mental utterances of seemingly gibberish. But, that does not mean that whenever one speaks gibberish in church that individual is experiencing the phenomena of mind, body and soul simultaneously experiencing God.
Honestly, I think some people fake it, but not most people. The power of seeing a person legitimately speak in tongues is very likely to trigger a response in the mind, body or soul of an onlooker. The power of seeing an entire congregation or charismatic leader speak in tongues (legitimate or fake) is likely to produce an overwhelming psychological response in indoctrinated individuals or individuals who are familiar with speaking in tongues or in individual who have a mind-set that can be easily seduced into a hypnotic trance like states. I believe that the majority of people who speak in tongues in large settings do so because of an overwhelming psychological response. They utter gibberish and believe truly and sincerely that it is at the prompt and control of the Holy Spirit.
This attack on organized speaking in tongues leaves me open to attacks on my experiences of God. On an irregular, but noticeably consistent basis I feel an overwhelming tingling sensation during musical praises to God. By my own argument I can state that these experiences are one of three situations:
1) I am lying, that is I fake it.
2) I am being overwhelmed by a purely psychological or emotional response.
3) I am truly experiencing God in body, soul and mind simultaneously.
The first is ridiculous. I am not lying. Though, if I could fake the sensation I gladly would. The spine tingling feeling is very pleasant. I feel at peace with myself and my surroundings. That is a rare occurrence because the majority of the time I am engaged in a civil war with myself. If I could elicit that feeling at will, even if it were a lie, I would gladly do so. Sadly (and thankfully) I cannot. Since I am not faking it, it must be legitimate. it is either a subconscious mechanism producing the sensation or God. This implies God exists.
Why do I accept that God exists? On face value I have accepted He exists from a very early age. My training and education and parental guidance has always assumed the existence of God. Philosophically, I can't accept it on face value.
I am not far enough into my studies or learning of philosophy to accept the existence of God from a purely philosophical viewpoint. I reject the ontological argument because I do not see the validity of it. Whether that is because it is not valid or I cannot fully understand it I do not know. But from a purely philosophical viewpoint I must accept the existence of a god and cannot deny the possibility that this god is the Christian God. I affirm the existence of a god for a number of reasons.
First, something must have brought existence as we know it into existence. Philosophically, I cannot demand that this be God, Allah or space gas. But, something, anything, had to create this world and me. This does not affirm God or Allah or any other deity, and it does not deny evolution or the big bang theory or even that the universe is itself an eternal god. It merely affirms that in order for existence at this current moment to be the way it is a god must exist. The first cause/unmoved mover is enough for me to state that some god exists.
Now, my biases will come to the forefront. I want this god to be benevolent and personal. if it is not then I am purposelessness. I am meaningless and so is every other human being. Thus every other man is a means to every other man. This would cause chaos. While the world (universe) is not a perfectly oiled machine as was once thought, it does operate with some resemblance of order and purpose. The earth rotates around the sun; it spins on its axis; the phases of the moon happen in a consistent way; gravity works and other natural laws are consistent. Those facts lead me to believe that the god, who most certainly exists is an orderly one.
Since the world is orderly (for the most part) I can eliminate the possibility of gods who are chaotic intentionally or at random. This is enough evidence for me to deny any origin theory that calls earth or the universe the sum of any accidents. No accidental collision of gases could create such order. I can cross off any god who is chaotic or accidental. Thus, I cannot accept the Big Bang Theory or that the god who exists is some collection of gases.
What do I have left? Orderly deities and the universe exist. The fact of the matter is that most humans and all animals enjoy order. Sure, even the obsessive compulsive neat freak are excited by chaos occasionally but even people who love chaos are agitated when nothing seems to be working properly. If I were to attempt to say table and the word television came out of my mouth every time, even if I thrived in chaos, I would be infuriated. Man's love for order makes me believe that the god who exists is benevolent.
The Universe is, for the most part, an orderly place. Man, for the most part, loves order. The fact that the god who created an orderly universe (even if it is the universe itself) and that human beings (and all other lower beings) love order creates two possibilities for me:
1) Man (and other animals) were purposefully designed for an orderly existence.
2) Man evolved in such a way to adapt to an orderly environment
At this point it pains me as an absolute creationist to state that both possibilities are as plausible as the other. I do in fact believe in creation, but I do believe microevolution is possible and has taken place. This process is a natural occurrence and unnatural occurrence. i.e. Dogs in the wild will breed with others creating a new pieces of dogs. Man can interbreed dogs and create new species. This process over years could create a bunch of new species.
An orderly god could easily create order through macroevolution or microevolution or another process. This leaves me still with equally plausible outcomes.
So far we know that god exists. This god is orderly and purposeful. Accidents cannot create purpose. Chaos cannot create order. The god must be benevolent because man exists (either through divine command or an evolutionary process) in a universe he is suited to.
This leads me to another question. Can a benevolent being be mindless? I do not believe so. In order for anything to be benevolent it must have the intent of pleasing something else. It would be absurd for me to state that this table is so benevolent for allowing me to use it. It is equally absurd to me to state that the universe is so benevolent for arranging itself in such a way for me to enjoy it. An arguer would state that it did not arrange itself, it was caused by gases or other 'accidental' causes. But we have already ruled out accidental causes due to the sheer miraculous nature of the possibility of the universe forming in such a way to facilitate life and the enjoyment of life. The purposeful order of the universe demands something more for an explanation than accidental causes. It could be said that the universe has always existed in this way, but that defies cosmological evidence. It could be argued then that the universe did in fact organize itself in this way purposefully. I would accept that, but it implies that the universe is benevolent, which in turn implies that the universe has a mind. That is absurd.
Thus, we can scratch off the universe in our list of gods. What is left? The god who caused the universe (created it) is benevolent, has a mind, is orderly and is purposeful. The fact that it is benevolent leads me to conclude that it is personal as well. If it or anything is benevolent it must have a personal interest in what it is showing benevolence to. All that we have left is the possibility of the god being a Supreme Being or God.
This argument does not come anywhere close to concluding that God is who Christians or Muslims or any other religion says he or she is. Nor does it deny the possibility of evolution. All it states is that god necessarily exists and that through elimination, that god must be the God.
The very definition of God demands that there is only one God. This throws out any religion based on equal Gods. Polytheism has not been eliminated because it does not require all gods to be God. Pantheism is not eliminated because we have no reason to believe yet that everything isn't just a part of God.
Could Pantheism be the correct interpretation of God? I will reject this quickly for a number of reasons. We know (from this argument) that God must have a mind. God is benevolent. God is orderly and purposeful. Combine these attributes for a moment and attempt to ponder the mind of God. The mind of God must be unimaginably incredible. The way a single organism sustains its existence is far beyond full comprehension of most scientists or human minds. Now there are billions of organisms that somehow sustain their life. The mind needed to design that is undoubtedly incredible. Then factor in all the non-living things and the natural laws that govern Earth. A mind capable of devising all the necessary things to have earth function in an orderly (or even functionally disorderly way) is incomprehensible. The design of the whole universe to be a functioning entity is so far beyond the scope of any human's mind that we cannot even truly to begin to comprehend it.
Basically this shows that God is smart. If Pantheism holds true then why would God design anything that in order to live it would have to destroy another thing? Think about it, basically if everything is a mere part of God overtime something eats God is cannibalizing himself only to defecate himself. Now a pantheist could argue that the consumption and defecation of himself is merely an illusion. But, if God is all things then who is he trying to fool?
Also take war or murder in human history. If every man is merely an extension of God then why would a smart God fight against himself? It would be like an educated man having a fistfight between his left and right arms.
For me, pantheism seems defeated. There is a god, that god is the Supreme Being, God. The order of the universe and its inhabitants being suitable for it implies benevolence, which in turn implies mind. The order of everything also implies that mind is undeniably intelligent. If God is an intelligent mind there would be no reason for any part of God to fight another part.
All we have left for God then is any form of monotheism or polytheism that has one Supreme God and a hierarchy of lower gods. But, I'm done for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment