God's Role in Our Lives

Recently, I've been reading a book by an American called Phillip Yancy on prayer. This has been very helpful in changing the way I think about the concept of prayer generally and in helping me find an answer to one point in particular: what do we mean if we ask God to "give us this day our daily bread"? What about the miracles in the Bible? How is this apparent belief in a God who can intervene at will in human history compatible with the tremendous amount of suffering in the world? This has always been a big sticking point for me in terms of faith in God but I think I may now have found a way of understanding it.

The essence lies in the way we understand God as acting in the world. God has created a physical universe, governed by the familiar laws of physics and cause and effect. Therefore, in order to act in the world, God will act in accordance with those laws (although I'm less clear on whether He must act within them, but this is probably irrelevant and is almost certainly unanswerable by human beings at this point in history). Therefore, rather than asking "why doesn't God do anything about x?" (where x equals world hunger, the conflict in Palestine etc....) we should be asking "what can I do (or, if you prefer, what is God calling me to do) about x?". Thus we move away from the rather unhelpful image of human beings as helpless little children, waiting for the manna to fall from heaven, towards a conception that tallies much closer with what we recognise ourselves to be: individuals with abilities and autonomy.

Some would doubtless raise objections to this, of which two spring immediately to mind. The first is that it is a rather too neat avoidance of responsibility on God's part: whenever a human being does something to alleviate the suffering of someone else, God takes the credit, yet whenever they cause harm to another, then it is entirely their action and God has nothing to do with it.

This, however, is not what I was trying to say. The explanation for what has been termed "the problem of evil" lies, in my understanding in the causal or creative nature of God. As Thomas Aquinas would put it, God is the cause of causality, the causa ultima. Therefore, God lies behind every human action, both good and bad. Not in the sense of a person driving a car, directly under control, but in the sense that, since God as creator is the foundation of everything, He lies behind every action.

The second objection is the problem of suffering which is not caused, either directly or indirectly, by other human beings, such as a person who has led a healthy lifestyle developing cancer. This is, admittedly, more of a challenge. Here it seems that God has designed a distinctly unpleasent universe and all we as humans can do is exercise our ingenuity and skill in minimising its effects. One argument is I suppose that God has given us that ingenuity and skill as well, giving us both solution and problem. Another point might be that we need some form of suffering in our lives: if our lives were unrelentingly good and pleasurable, those things would cease to have any meaning.

Yet although both of these points may have some small merit, it is true that they provide scant comfort to those who are actually suffering, since they do not answer the fundamental heartfult cry of "why me, in particular? why must I suffer?". To this, sadly, there is perhaps never going to be a satisfactory answer. Perhaps all we can say is that it is necessary to have some negative elements in the world and try to do our best to distribute them as equally as we are able.

This conception of God as the causa ultima also allows me to overcome the difficulty I expressed in my last entry: the idea of there being one (or even a variety of alternative) best ways to live life that have been chosen for us by some higher being. This idea somewhat misses the point. God's "plan" for our lives is not like that of a controlling parent who uses a combination of direct orders and emotional blackmail to push their child into going to university or choosing a particular career. Rather, God's intention for us is that we should simply be happy, his "purpose" for us is living fulfilled lives, in whateverform we choose. The only condition or rule here seems to be that whatever we do should be genuinely fulfilling. So, just as many people would question the fulfillment to be found in a life of drug addiction or making porn films, God would also say that there are perhaps better ways to spend your life.

Ultimately, my understanding of all these questions is rooted in our relationship with God: if we have the same kind of relationship with God as we do with our more terrestrial best friends, we will minimise the harm we cause and try to live a fulfilling life.

The Will of God

One of the things I like most about this view is the emphasis on human autonomy, particularly "the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape" to one's own life. I passionately believe everyone has the right to define notions of 'truth' and 'value' for themselves. This, it should be understood, does not equate to a belief that everyone's truth is of equal worth: I am entitled to believe that my truth is one worth having (and must logically do so, otherwise there would be little point in my having it in the first place) and am entitled to attempt to persuade others of this truth, providing that they show themselves open to persuasion.

This element of the statement is also clearly intended to rebut the so-called 'deterministic' theologies: the idea (put very simply) that God has some sort of a plan for humankind. It is worth noting that, at least in the Christian context, this idea is both quite widespread and deeply problematic. The conflict between conceptions of free will and humankind's ability to choose salvation (through good works inspired by faith in Christ) and suggestions that the number and identity of those to be 'saved' is predetermined by God has played itself out throughout the history of that particular religion. St. Augustine, for example, was apparently persuaded of the 'determined' idea by the story of a man who had lived a life of exemplary piety for many years, only to be supposedly damned by the purchase of a dancing girl (third century euphemism for prostitute) on his eightieth birthday: the conclusion to be drawn is supposedly that he was therefore always damned and that "the truth will out".

I have always found such ideas deeply repellent and would like to think that there are people who would call themselves Christian who would support me on this. Nevertheless, the idea that "God is working His purpose out" and that "God has called me to some definite service" remain strong elements of Christian thinking and ones which deeply puzzle and trouble me. I can see how these ideas don't necessarily lead one to the extreme position of St. Augustine: it is after all possible to adopt perhaps a view that God has a plan that we are free to reject. Yet I still find the idea that there is one (or even a variety of alternative) best ways to live life that have been chosen for us by some higher being problematic.

And one more thing....

Forgot to say for anyone who finds the idea of spiritual humanism appealing, explanation/more info can be found here : http://www.spiritualhumanism.org/what.htm

Spiritual Humanism

Recently, I've come across something called spiritual humanism and find it in some ways quite attractive, so I think that's where I'm going to start my blogging.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union propounds the following as a “minimum statement” for humanists everywhere.

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

It is clear that, on this view, ethics and not metaphysics are the key to humanist response. Indeed, the definition seems to affirm the right of each individual to develop their own metaphysical system, within the limits of a rejection of theism and supernaturalism.

Ethically, the position seems linked to humanitarianism and an emphasis on respect for human life and dignity on the grounds of rationality. This does not (as some have claimed) entail an acceptance of speciesism, in which humanity is regarded as being ethically more superior than other creatures. Rather, it posits that, as human beings are capable of rationalizing their pain, through feeling emotions such as anger and betrayal as a result of it, such pain causes cumulatively greater harm than if one (for instance) injured a pigeon. That is to say that, whilst it may be true to say that the pigeon feels pain, there is no evidence to suggest that pigeons rationalise in the same way that humans do. There may be other animals (such as dolphins, for instance) who are just as capable of these processes yet the essential point is that human life and dignity ought to be protected because of their clear ability to rationalise in this way.

So that explains the "humanist" aspect of things. The spiritual element, in as far as I can tell from my reading, comes from the combination of this ethical emphasis on personal fulfilment and self-determination with a form of naturalism; (not naturism, which is entirely different!) that is a form of spiritual wonder at the force of nature and the acceptance of being in "an unscripted drama" where the very impermanence of our human existence leads us to value it all the more. Naturalists claim that one must seek to face the realities of death, suffering and pain unflinchingly; as mere "facts of life", without any 'metaphysical comfort blanket' to help us. We are called to create meaning for ourselves, using our own capacities, in a world made all the more beautiful by our finite existence, seeking to live every moment 'as if it were the last'.

Beginnings

Perhaps like many people, I have always felt a sense of the spiritual in my life. I have always, deep down, been convinced that there is something more to life; that there are ultimate and truthful answers to some very big questions.

I have tried numerous different philosophies and religions in pursuit of these answers: from an atheistic philosophy based on the simple enjoyment of life (to be found, at least in my reading, in the works of the thinker Albert Camus) through buddhism, hinduism and even satanism. In seeking to understand each of these ways of thinking about the world, I feel as if I have gathered many different insights and elements which might come together to provide some answers.

I hope to chronicle my journey towards those answers in this blog. It may not be very enlightening, either for me or for anyone who chooses to read it, but I'm secretly hoping that by putting my thoughts and ideas into written form, I can arrive at something which will give me a coherent picture of the world.

By publishing my thoughts in a blog, I would like to invite whoever may be out there and inclined to read this to comment on my thoughts: my hope is that there may be someone reading this who feels they have the answers to some of the questions I ask or may simply be seeking to answer the same questions and have a different "take" to the one I've presented. Whoever you are, whatever your views, please feel free to share them here with me and I hope that together we can move towards an enlightened understanding of the world.