Fill in the blanks

We looked upon this world of warring individuals, warring theological systems, and inexplicable calamity, with deep skepticism. We looked askance at many individuals who claimed to be godly. How could a Supreme Being have anything to do with it all? And who could comprehend a Supreme Being anyhow? Yet, in other moments, we found ourselves thinking, when enchanted by a starlit night, "Who, then, made all this?" There was a feeling of awe and wonder, but it was fleeting and soon lost. Alcoholics Anonymous, p.46

Sorry to get so "Carl Sagan" on you last time but I had just been outside looking at the stars. I had intended to discuss the first part of this passage but I had been looking at the stars and just felt like making some feeble attempt to convey my own personal awe and wonder.

So what about the first part? This is the old "How could a loving God (fill in the blank). The answer to that is that God has no intention of filling in any blanks. We're not the ones making the rules. In fact, were not sure what the rules are, or even if there are rules. There is such a thing as mystery and in my opinion people of good spiritual development ponder the mysteries, they don't try to solve them.

The fact is that we came into the spiritual life looking for a fight. We already had our minds made up and all that had to be done was find enough evidence to support our resentment. And so the God idea was neatly tucked away. If we are going to make any progress in reaching agnostics there has to be a willingness to meet them on their terms, on their own turf. Having been one of these dreary antagonists I think I am somewhat qualified to take on the task.

It helps to break the argument down into its sub-arguments.

Argument one: people do bad things.

This one's a paper tiger. People do bad things because (here it comes) people are not as good as we expect them to be. The problem is not God, it's our assumption that God has it in His power to suspend free will and for some malevolent reason He isn't doing it. The argument is actually turned on its head. People have the power to do evil, God has it within His power to stop them, He doesn't, ergo He does not exist. The fundamental flaw in this argument is in not realizing that our free will is part of the way God created us. If He didn't intend for us to have free will we wouldn't have gotten it in the first place. And if was right in the first place, why would He change it?

This is truly a mystery, but there is a least one way to approach it. If love is not freely given is it actually love? Can a creature devoid of free will love God in any meaningful way? I believe with all my heart that God loves me so much that he given me the power to reject Him. And if I have the power to reject Him, then and only then do I have the power to love Him. This is what the story of the Garden tells us.

Argument two: God allows terrible things to happen to innocent people. Natural disasters, disease, anything not the result of human evil.

I read a story the other day where a man gave God the credit for saving him when he fell over a waterfall. That's nice. But do we ever hear from the people whom God doesn't save? No, because they aren't around to tell us about it. I would be very cautious about giving God credit for things going my way.

The case is often made that God permits suffering in our lives because He wants us to mature spiritually. All well and good, but try telling that to a parent whose child is suffering through no fault of his own. What insane spiritual maturity is He trying to achieve? It's true that we can use the hardships in our live to grow closer to Him, but it seems like there ought to be a better way. Again, a mystery.

I don't claim to have an easy answer to this. But I was once approached by a member of AA who threw that argument in my face. At first I was at a loss for words (it happens). Then I said something that I will always remember. I said," Assuming that suffering is a given, would you rather suffer through life without God or with Him?" I don't understand why there is suffering, but I'm not willing to go it alone. If it's raining, why do you curse the umbrella you refuse to use?

Argument three: people with one belief system disagree with people who have an opposite one. They can't both be right therefore they are both wrong.

I agree. They're both wrong. Or to put it another way, claims of absolute truth are not faith, they are hubris. I have no truck with "true believers." Scott Peck (rest his two-faced souls) had a pretty good analysis of this. Stage one is the skeptic, the non-believer. We already know him. Sage two is the true believer. Faith covers his doubt. He has seen the light and nothing will shake his conviction. Or at least he won't let anyone shake it. Stage three is the person who has outgrown this certainty is is undergoing a crisis of faith. His doubt covers his faith which was covering his skepticism. They are usually assaulted by stage three people who see them as going backward (they're not of course). They may give up the whole thing in disgust and return to stage one. But there are those who one day realize that doubt is part of faith. They develop a faith that encompasses the doubt that covers shallow faith that covers skepticism. Got that? If you think about it, the people we most admire spiritually are those who are able to remain humble in the face of their unknowing.

I took me a long time to say what Bill said more succinctly. The take-away from all this is that we must never forget that we are variously at all these stages at any given time. That's why it's called "We Agnostics" not "You Agnostics."