Today an old question becomes relevant again. I read about a protestant vicar who says he doesn’t believe in God anymore, but keeps working as a vicar. In the Christian newspaper “Trouw” an interview was published with the famous Dutch poet Rutger Kopland who also says he doesn’t believe in God. And yet, if you read and listen to their thoughts, you recognize their feelings about God. They have indeed religious feelings, but at least Kopland doesn’t call them religious. The vicar says in very interesting words that “he believes in a God who doesn’t exist”. I come back to this later.
Now there’s also published the Dutch translation of the book by Francesco Carotta who claims by means of a lot of “circumstantial evidence” that the Gospels are inspired by the life of Julius Caesar, and that Jesus is not a historical person but made up of traits and characteristics of Julius Caesar.
And yet it belongs of course to the essence of being religious: that you believe in God. I can remember that we as children went to friends because they had a “holy mass acting set”: a little altar, toy holy mass accessories, and holy mass priest and acolyte clothing. So we could “play holy mass”. My parents found it a bit blasphemous, so we hadn’t got such a set. I remember that when my friend stood on the chair leaning on its back (the pulpit) as a priest to start his sermon, he never could be more original than shouting “God exists!” He always played the priest because the toys were his so he wanted to be the boss. I found it the dullest and dumbest cry one could utter as part of a sermon. Of course God existed, you don’t need to emphasize that so strongly. It was a given fact, and if you had doubts, then it was your fault and not God’s fault of being non-existent.
Now I hear that even the Dutch archbishop Cardinal Simonis has sometimes doubts. But what kind of doubts are we talking about when we ask the unquestionable question whether God exists or not? If we say “God doesn’t exist” do we mean the same as if we would say “Santa Claus doesn’t exist” or “it’s only a dream, these things don’t exist” or “miracles don’t exist” etc. Many religious people think that denying God’s existence is in the same kind of meaning. Something exists, and “exists” means that you can notice it, or could have noticed it if you were there, with your senses, it’s something touchable, visible etc. and if you can’t notice it, it doesn’t exist. Existing things and phenomena have something sacrosanct, non-existent things you can ignore, they don’t “matter”. Writing this – and hopefully you reading this – this reality starts to stagger. Are our senses trustworthy in deciding if something exists or not? Must something be existent in order to be real, and must something be real to be existent? This is not playing with words. There are realities (or, if you like, there is a reality) that we cannot notice with our senses, not even with the finest observation instruments, even the harshest “atheist” will acknowledge this. There were times during which scholars presented calculated and logically coherent “proofs of God’s existence”. What they did, was applying a human idea (the concept of “proof”) to God. And that ‘s also the reason why there are atheists: these people refuse to accept something for existent that cannot be described or logically deducted. People who pray to “The Lord” do accept this, without being able to describe Who or What He is. Of course, masses of religious people think they can describe Him, in an image that we all know: a man on a throne, ruling everything. You can’t see Him because He is some kind of Almighty Ghost, steering everything with His invisible hand.
I strongly believe that we humans are very good in telling Who God is not, and very unable to tell Who He is. I think that’s also the reason why God’s name is so important in Judaism and Islam: in Judaism He has one unspeakable name (you may not even mention it), in Islam Allah (God) has 99 names. In Christianity we use the metaphors of “Lord” and “Father”, which are rather role-names than names referring to an identity.
The only way, I think to approach a description of God is speaking in the “I’ and “me” – mode, and I’ll try to do so. Whoever thinks to be full of faith and absolutely without doubts, and speaks of “God will…” or “God is…”, and also whoever decisively rejects any talking or thinking about God, might both well be wrong in their idea of Who or What God is. Why can I say this? Can I assess another’s faith? No, my idea of God is wrong because as long as I (emphasis on “I”) think that my idea of God reflects the reality of God, I’m wrong, God is beyond any idea, I notice God, if I may say so, at least with my needs, not with my senses. God is there because I need Him. I could write a book about it, and it will not be sufficient. I think I understand the vicar who said: “I believe in a God who doesn’t exist”, but I don’t understand people who tell me that God exists or doesn’t exist. Next time part II of this deliberation on God.
Now there’s also published the Dutch translation of the book by Francesco Carotta who claims by means of a lot of “circumstantial evidence” that the Gospels are inspired by the life of Julius Caesar, and that Jesus is not a historical person but made up of traits and characteristics of Julius Caesar.
And yet it belongs of course to the essence of being religious: that you believe in God. I can remember that we as children went to friends because they had a “holy mass acting set”: a little altar, toy holy mass accessories, and holy mass priest and acolyte clothing. So we could “play holy mass”. My parents found it a bit blasphemous, so we hadn’t got such a set. I remember that when my friend stood on the chair leaning on its back (the pulpit) as a priest to start his sermon, he never could be more original than shouting “God exists!” He always played the priest because the toys were his so he wanted to be the boss. I found it the dullest and dumbest cry one could utter as part of a sermon. Of course God existed, you don’t need to emphasize that so strongly. It was a given fact, and if you had doubts, then it was your fault and not God’s fault of being non-existent.
Now I hear that even the Dutch archbishop Cardinal Simonis has sometimes doubts. But what kind of doubts are we talking about when we ask the unquestionable question whether God exists or not? If we say “God doesn’t exist” do we mean the same as if we would say “Santa Claus doesn’t exist” or “it’s only a dream, these things don’t exist” or “miracles don’t exist” etc. Many religious people think that denying God’s existence is in the same kind of meaning. Something exists, and “exists” means that you can notice it, or could have noticed it if you were there, with your senses, it’s something touchable, visible etc. and if you can’t notice it, it doesn’t exist. Existing things and phenomena have something sacrosanct, non-existent things you can ignore, they don’t “matter”. Writing this – and hopefully you reading this – this reality starts to stagger. Are our senses trustworthy in deciding if something exists or not? Must something be existent in order to be real, and must something be real to be existent? This is not playing with words. There are realities (or, if you like, there is a reality) that we cannot notice with our senses, not even with the finest observation instruments, even the harshest “atheist” will acknowledge this. There were times during which scholars presented calculated and logically coherent “proofs of God’s existence”. What they did, was applying a human idea (the concept of “proof”) to God. And that ‘s also the reason why there are atheists: these people refuse to accept something for existent that cannot be described or logically deducted. People who pray to “The Lord” do accept this, without being able to describe Who or What He is. Of course, masses of religious people think they can describe Him, in an image that we all know: a man on a throne, ruling everything. You can’t see Him because He is some kind of Almighty Ghost, steering everything with His invisible hand.
I strongly believe that we humans are very good in telling Who God is not, and very unable to tell Who He is. I think that’s also the reason why God’s name is so important in Judaism and Islam: in Judaism He has one unspeakable name (you may not even mention it), in Islam Allah (God) has 99 names. In Christianity we use the metaphors of “Lord” and “Father”, which are rather role-names than names referring to an identity.
The only way, I think to approach a description of God is speaking in the “I’ and “me” – mode, and I’ll try to do so. Whoever thinks to be full of faith and absolutely without doubts, and speaks of “God will…” or “God is…”, and also whoever decisively rejects any talking or thinking about God, might both well be wrong in their idea of Who or What God is. Why can I say this? Can I assess another’s faith? No, my idea of God is wrong because as long as I (emphasis on “I”) think that my idea of God reflects the reality of God, I’m wrong, God is beyond any idea, I notice God, if I may say so, at least with my needs, not with my senses. God is there because I need Him. I could write a book about it, and it will not be sufficient. I think I understand the vicar who said: “I believe in a God who doesn’t exist”, but I don’t understand people who tell me that God exists or doesn’t exist. Next time part II of this deliberation on God.
