Tag: Philosophy

Understanding the Hiddenness of God: Insights on the Nature of and Mystery of God

God is not a physical being like we are in this material world

kevingdrendel3 Comments

The “hiddenness of God” is a reality that causes some people to doubt the existence of God. If God is so great and so loving, why is He hidden to so many people? If God really exists, why isn’t God plainly evident to everyone? If God desires everyone to know Him, what’s the problem?

I have many thoughts about this dilemma, and I have written on the hiddenness of God many times before. Today, however, I want to highlight some thoughts that come through comments by an Australian YouTuber, Confident Faith, on a conversation between Jordan Peterson and Bishop Barron.

They discuss the nature of God – what kind of “being” God is. We naturally approach the idea of God from our human perspective. A person might wonder, “How can we even know what kind of a being God is?” Especially, if we are not even sure God exists!

But, we can know what kind of a “being” a God who could have created the Universe may be. Our reason suggests to us that a God who is capable of creating the time, space, and matter that comprises the Universe must be separate from and “other” than the reality of the Universe. Such a creating God must exist in a reality that is not contained within the Universe.

If we might think of the Universe as a box, we might say that boxes don’t simply for or create themselves. A box maker (who is not a box) creates them. Thus, we can intuit that Universes don’t form or make themselves. A Universe maker is required who is contained within a Universe.

If the box (or universe) is all we know, it’s hard to conceive of something outside the box (universe). It’s exceedingly hard for us to conceive of reality other than the basic units of time, space, and matter that comprise the physical Universe in which we live. Therefore, we have an exceedingly difficult time wrapping our minds around the idea of a Creator of those who is not contained within the reality of our Universe.

Even my attempt to describe the problem is inadequate, as the only reality we know is a physical one (comprised of that same time, space, and matter). For a God to have created those things and to have formed them into the Universe, that God would have to have been timeless, spaceless, and immaterial (not contained within that box), yet present with it.

I know that many people believe that a thing can create itself. Stephen Hawking famously said, “Because there is such a thing as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” This is a box creating a box analogy. Hawking is essentially saying that the substance that makes up the components of the box (Universe) self formed and self organized into a box (Universe).

I, personally, find it harder to believe that the Universe created itself than to believe that God, who exists “outside” time, space, and matter, created the Universe.

This fundamental difference in approach and perspective is the Continental Divide on the issue of the existence of God. A person who is unwilling or unable to consider anything “outside” the bounds of the time, space, and matter that comprise the Universe is going to be utterly incapable of “seeing” (grasping, conceiving, or even allowing for) the possibility of God.

But, this way of thinking is not foreign to any of us. In fact, it’s most natural for us to think this way, because all we know is the box (Universe) in which we live.

In dealing with this dilemma, Bishop Barron goes back to the ancient text in Deuteronomy when Moses asked God, who should I say sent me. Barron says that Moses was basically asking, “What kind of a being are you?” In doing this, Moses is trying to put God into categorical terms.

God’s response was, “I am who I am!”  God is saying that He cannot be categorized as we categorize things in this Universe. This response points Moses to outside the box (Universe). This means, says Barron,, “God is not a being, but Being, itself.”

If we follow down the path of Moses’s questioning, we inevitably end up as an atheist. If we insist on putting God into categorical terms, like the time, space and matter we can touch, see, feel, and measure, God remains a mystery. We can’t touch, see, feel, or measure God because He is not comprised of (or limited by) physicality (time, space and matter), and, therefore, God is not a categorical object in the world.

Augustine called God the “Prius” – the thing that is prior to being, itself. God is that upon which the categorical world depends. God is not the highest being (as we often conceive Him to be), the highest being is still just a being; rather, God is the essence of being.

I like the way Confident Faith wraps up these things. He says,

“God is not a physical being like we are in this material world. For example, humans, animals and plants are all physical beings in this physical world. However, the pitch of God’s existence is infinitely higher. He is not physical like we are. He is Spirit. God does not exist somewhere in this physical universe. You won’t find him hiding behind some distance galaxy way out on the known limits of the known universe. Likewise, you won’t find Him hiding somewhere in the subatomic realm. It’s foolish to expect or demand that God be found in this way…. God is not just one being among many in this world. God is the very source of being.”

We are finite; God is infinite. We are contingent and caused; God is non-contingent and uncaused. We are physical, but God is Spirit. Therefore, Confident Faith says,

“Taking these factors into account, it’s reasonable to hold that God’s existence in nature will always, to a degree, be a mystery or hidden from us.”

The hiddenness of God, therefore, is a function of the difference between a box maker and the things in the box. We are a “thing” in the box of this Universe, and God “outside” of it. We are constrained by our physicality, and God is not constrained by physicality because God is Spirit.

Our ability to grasp and to understand such a God, therefore, requires us to let ourselves think outside the box of this Universe. We have to be willing to think outside the box to be able to begin to gain some understanding of God.

I have embedded the short YouTube video on this subject below, but I will close with a few other passages in the Bible the speak profoundly of the nature of God. These passages reveal that God’s hiddenness has purpose, that God knew what He was doing in creating the world the way He did, and His “hiddenness” from us is part of that purpose.

“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth”

John 4:24

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Acts 17:24-28

Paul recognized in his address to Greek philosophers in the passage quoted above the “hiddenness” of God, such that we must “seek” Him and “feel [our} way toward Him”. I believe, as some have objected, that God could have made himself plainly evident to us, but He chose not to do that.

I believe the reason He chose not to reveal Himself plainly to us is to give us space to seek Him because we want to, not because we must. If God was plainly evident, what choice would we have?

I believe that God is not looking for automatons that are programmed to obey. God wants us to know Him and to love Him authentically. He does not desire that we merely believe in Him; He desires a reciprocal relationship with us. but A clue to this lies in the words of James:

Even the demons believe—and shudder!

James 2:19

The demons have no doubt that God exists, but they hate God, and they “bristle” at the thought of God!

In the event a person might be tempted to think that the hiddenness of god is unfair, we have these promises:

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

Matthew 7:7-8

 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Revelation3:20

God may be “hidden” to us, but He desires to be “found”. He promises that He will reveal Himself. We can’t be half-hearted about it, however.

 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

Jeremish 29:13

The Problem of the Intelligibility of the Universe

kevingdrendel3 Comments
The Milky Way

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein

I am intrigued by the stories of peoples’ journeys, especially of their thought journeys. Some are more intriguing than others. The story of Pat Flynn fits squarely into the more intriguing category. (See the Side B Stories Podcast – Episode 78 – Science, Philosophy, and Reality – Pat Flynn’s Story)

Patrick Flynn has an educational background in philosophy. He embraced naturalism at an early age, but he encountered philosophical problems with naturalism when he read people like HL Menken and Frederick Nietzsche. These problems led him to seek answers that might provide a more coherent view of reality.

I am not going to try to summarize his whole story. You can listen to him describe his thought journey at the link in the first paragraph. I just want to focus on one aspect of his journey from atheism to theism.

Flynn’s journey took him from atheism to theism through the medium of philosophy. This process was intellectual for him, and not experiential. He became convinced of theism, first, before he even told his spouse, because he knew she was not particularly fond of religion.

He didn’t dive into Christianity after he became convinced of theism. He explored Eastern religions, first, perhaps because he had a good friend who was Indian. When the Eastern religions didn’t solve the philosophical problems posed by naturalism, he reluctantly began to explore Christianity.

One of the big issues Flynn had with atheism was the lack of explanation for the fact the universe is intelligible. Digging further, Patrick Flynn found that the fundamental, core commitments of science fit much better with theism than with atheism.

Continue reading “The Problem of the Intelligibility of the Universe” →

Thoughts on Perspective, Science and Faith

As finite beings, We have no choice put to adopt our fundamental principles on faith. We do not have the requisite perspective to have more certainty than that.

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

I have two blogs I maintain currently: Perspective and Navigating by Faith. Perspective and faith loosely characterize my journey over many years: trying to find perspective and understanding the value, the necessity, and the integrity of a faith grounded in reality, both observable and unseen.

Many people believe that faith is the opposite of fact and at odds with science and reason. I strongly disagree. I have come to believe that faith is inescapable for finite beings – both religious ones and non-religious ones alike – and faith lies at the core of everything we believe to be true.

I was listening to a podcast discussion recently when one of the participants said something like this: When we approach any evidence, we approach it with a perspective. This is a non-pejorative way of saying that we are all “biased”.

As finite beings we are all necessarily “biased” by our own perspective, our own experiences, our own knowledge, understanding and ability to grasp, synthesize and categorize what we know and understand. Our perspective is influenced and filtered through our location in the world, our place in the culture and society in which we live, the history that we remember, and too many other things to summarize them adequately in a short blog article.

The discussion in the podcast that prompts this writing focused briefly on the fact that we all bring assumptions to the table when we consider anything. Those assumptions, however intentionally or surreptitiously developed, are the bedrock of each of our worldviews. They are the foundations on which we stand. They are the filters through which we see the world.

Those assumptions are developed, to a greater or lesser degree, by some combination of our external influences, our internal leanings and reactions to those external influences, and our consciously or unconsciously chosen compass points we use to guide ourselves in sorting out the information we encounter.

At the most basic level, those assumptions are axiomatic. They are truths we take for granted. We cannot prove them, and we rarely question them without crisis. We are fortunate if they hold us in good stead, if they are well-enough grounded in reality and fact to be of benefit to us in our dealings with the circumstances of our lives.

If those basic assumptions are not well considered and well-grounded, we can be blown about by every wind. If they are not based in fact and an accurate grasp of the nuance of reality, they can prove little consolation or comfort in times of crisis. If they are not well-anchored in timeless truth, they can leave us adrift when we need to count on them most.

The unique perspectives in light of which finite beings approach any evidence is necessarily limited and biased because we are limited and finite beings. At best, we can only hope to orientate ourselves in the direction of truth. We don’t define truth. We don’t establish truth. We don’t’ generate truth.

This is necessarily the case with finite beings who can only approach reality from a particular location at a particular time in the context of a particular cultural, historical, and philosophical point of view.

If I was omniscient and all seeing, I could have ultimate confidence in my perspective. My perspective would be objective and factual. My perspective would be the measure of all reality.

But no human being can validly make that claim (though we may and often do think and act like we can). In all honesty and humility, we must each admit that we come at evidence from a perspective with bias born out of our own experience, cultural context, limited knowledge and limited understanding.

We don’t know what we don’t know.

As a necessary corollary to these things, which I believe with all the certainty that I can possibly ascribe to these things, we are creatures of faith. All of us. We have no choice put to adopt our fundamental principles on faith. We do not have the requisite perspective to have more certainty than that.

My conclusion in this regard is based on fact (that humans are finite beings) and “logic” or philosophy, which reasons from the fact that we are finite to conclude that our perspective is limited thereby. Because our perspective is limited, we must rely on faith in making our conclusions which, themselves, derive from the fundamental assumptions we also take on faith. We can’t escape these limitations because they are inherent in finite creatures such as ourselves.

Some people even in this modern age, however, have boldly claimed that science is the study of all the reality that exists. Further, they say, therefore, we no longer need philosophy or theology. (I have heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say this very thing.) I am going to push back on that idea in this blog post.

Continue reading “Thoughts on Perspective, Science and Faith” →

On the Delusion of Plausible Arguments, I Hold to Christ in Me

kevingdrendel2 Comments

As I read through Scripture, I am always looking to understand it better. At the same time, I am listening for God to speak to me. In the process, I notice things. Like today. I noticed Paul’s statement to the Colossians:

I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.

Colossians 2:4 ESV

Hmmm… the delusion of plausible arguments. That’s an interesting phrase… (So it seems to me, anyway!) I want to explore that a bit further.

Context is always important. the context for this statement is Paul’s letter to the people in Colossae, a very Greek city. He had already been to Athens where the Athenians spent significant time telling and listening to the latest ideas. (Acts 17:21)

In our modern view, we might imagine an ancient think tank in which new ideas are explored and developed toward some greater ends. We might be tempted to see Athens as an incubator of ideas for the benefit of mankind.

Luke, the writer of Acts, was not being complimentary, however, when he made this observation. The context suggests a contrast between a desire for novel ideas and a desire for truth. Ideas for the sake of ideas and novelty for the sake of novelty may be an erudite pastime for the bored elite who enjoy comfort and privilege, but they are not noble pursuits in themselves.

Unless one has a desire to know truth (and put it into practice), entertaining new ideas is only an exercise in futility, diversion and delusion. The ancient writer of Ecclesiastes, writing about a millennia before Paul set foot in Athens, recognized “there is nothing new under the sun”. (Ecc. 1:9)

Even way back then! Chasing after ideas that are new for the sake of novelty is just a distraction from the truth. It is meaningless!

Paul views the sharing of ideas for the novelty of them in the same way modern people might play video games or read a book – entertainment to pass time. He obviously thought little of such things and had no time for it.  

Truth had been revealed to Paul in the form of the risen Jesus, whom his people had crucified and Paul had persecuted. Paul’s whole life was interrupted one day as he traveled with the intention of arresting and imprisoning Christ followers in Damascus, and the course and trajectory of Paul’s life was forever changed.

Paul’s life would never be the same. By the time Paul wrote the letter to the Colossians, his motto had become “to live is Christ and to die is gain”. (Phil. 1:21) Other things, including a preoccupation with novel ideas, has become mere distractions not worth his time.

If we can tell anything about the biographical and autobiographical sketches of Paul in Acts and his letters, we can see that Paul was fiercely and uncompromisingly concerned about truth. That attitude led him to persecute the followers of Christ with zeal when he thought the truth lay in that direction.

It was Paul’s commitment to truth that prompted him to turn in the opposite direction and accept the same Jesus Paul had persecuted as his Lord and Savior. Paul gave himself completely as a servant of the risen Lord to the point of sharing in his own body the sufferings of Christ (as described in Colossians 1:24).

Paul’s turn of phrase, perhaps, is what caught my eye as I read through Colossians this morning: the delusion of plausible arguments. It deserves some additional contemplation.

Continue reading “On the Delusion of Plausible Arguments, I Hold to Christ in Me” →

Paul Put the Pieces of a Puzzle together for Dionysius at the Areopagus

Some people want to fit the pieces to the puzzle together.

kevingdrendel1 Comment

Perhaps, my favorite speech (sermon) in the Bible is Paul’s address to an elite group of people in Athens. The people in Athens were fond of spending their time “in nothing except telling or hearing something new”. (Acts 17:21) When some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers heard Paul in the marketplace, they brought him to the Areopagus.

Do you know people like that? They like to talk philosophy, but they don’t do it out of a love for the truth. They just like the intellectual challenge or the exercise of the imagination. Those conversations are ultimately unfulfilling unless truth is the object.

When Paul came to Athens, he was struck by all the idols he saw. (Acts 16:17) Athens was filled philosophies and gods of unending variety. In this way, Athens was like the modern Internet: a person might not ever exhaust all the possibilities. A person could spend a lifetime trying without ever synthesizing all the information and fitting the pieces to the puzzle of life together.

Paul cut the chase. Referencing an inscription: “To the unknown god”, Paul opened his speech with the statement, “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:23)

I love that! Paul started where they were. He started with something familiar to them, and he used it as a segue into an introduction of “[t]he God who made the world and everything in it”. There were temples everywhere in Athens, but Paul was not shy in saying that the “Lord of heaven and earth does not live in temples made by men”. (Acts 17:24)

Paul wasn’t interested in small talk, or ideas for nothing but the novelty of them.

I also love that Paul quoted Greek philosophers and poets to them. He quoted Epimenides of Crete for the proposition that “In him [the God who made the heaven and earth] we live and move and have our being”; and he quoted Aratus for that proposition that we are His offspring. (Acts 17:28)

Paul was educated, and he could speak the language of educated people. He could take poetry and use it in a sermon on God. He didn’t play their games, though. He didn’t speak just to hear himself talk. He didn’t pander to their penchant for novel ideas.

He called them to account: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30)

Paul preached the Gospel, the good news that Jesus died for our sins, redeeming us from destruction and giving us the hope of everlasting life, but Paul lost most of his audience at that point. They weren’t interested in “dogma”. They took offense at the exclusivity of Paul’s message. They liked ideas, but they weren’t interested in truth. Sound familiar?

Truth, of course, is exclusive. That’s the nature of truth. People like the Athenians, and people who embrace post-modern thought today, don’t want to want to hear ideas that are exclusive. They want variety. They want to keep their options open, ironically even to the exclusion of truth.

A few people, though, were moved by Paul’s sermon. They wanted to hear more. Among them was Dionysius, the Areopagite. For Dionysius, Paul provided him the missing piece to the puzzle of his life.

Continue reading “Paul Put the Pieces of a Puzzle together for Dionysius at the Areopagus” →