Taste and See

For the past several weeks I’ve been talking about Christian belief: how I came to belief, and the general basis for belief in Christ. In particular, I maintained the following points:

1. God is the creator of the cosmos. He is transcendent, i.e., not part of the cosmos, but also immanent, i.e., He works actively within every part of the cosmos.
2. We can prove through natural theology that this kind of God must exist.
3. Natural theology doesn’t tell us very much about Him.
4. Because love is naturally expressive of itself, God wishes to make Himself known to His creation.
5. To this end God made Himself known in history through Abraham and his descendents, and especially through the Jews, the Children of Israel.
6. This process culminated in the coming of Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, Son of God and Son of Mary, and the fullest revelation of God to His creation.
7. And so, most of what we know about God we know because He has communicated it to us.

Points 1, 2, and 3 are naturally controversial, and I haven’t attempted to give the formal proof. Aquinas’ full statement of one his ways of proving it (from the Summa Contra Gentiles) is quite long and involved, and I’m not at all sure I can do it justice in a manner that anyone would read. (Though I might try anyway, at some point.)

Anyway, the point is that there is no point in asking for a purely philosophical, purely logical proof of the existence of the Christian God. Instead, I have to point to God making Himself known in history. Note that this puts knowledge of God in line with other forms of human knowledge: outside of mathematics we know precious little from purely logical proofs.

And if there is a transcendent and immanent God, a God who is not part of the cosmos He has created but works within it, a God who wants to make Himself known to the people He has created, He’d pretty much have to involve Himself in history in this way.

But why not make it more obvious? Why is He so elusive? Because if He makes Himself too obvious, it would be like being in the beam of a spot light, blinding. He will not override our free will. (But that’s a post for another day).

What I want to talk about today is another part of Alex Symczak’s comment on this post. I had suggested that one way for an individual who is unsure of the truth of God’s existence is to taste and see to ask God for a sign, to reveal himself if he’s there. My interlocutor, Alex Symczak, found this unpersuasive. He said,

In regard to your final point: “if you wonder whether someone is home, it’s reasonable to knock on the door and see if anyone answers.” I have a problem with this analogy. Yes, it is reasonable to knock to see if someone is home, but why is that? It is because I know that humans build houses and live in them, and that knocking on the door is a good way to get their attention and bring them to the door if they are home.

As I noted in points 1, 2, and 3 above, there is reason to think that there is someone at home, both from natural theology and from the witness of history. The presence of some kind of divinity has been obvious to most people who have ever lived; and I assure you we aren’t more intelligent than they were. But Alex goes on,

I’m assuming that when you say I should “knock on the door” that means I should get on my knees and start speaking into the air. I don’t have reason to believe that there are beings living out there somewhere (In the sky? In another dimension? Depends on who you talk too, and it doesn’t matter anyway) and that speaking into the air is a good way to get their attention and see if they are there. I might as well say you should play a trumpet for mushrooms to see if Smurfs are there. That is not reasonable.

The thing about a transcendent God is that He’s not a part of the cosmos. He’s not in the sky; He’s not in another dimension. In one sense He’s not anywhere, not in the sense that I’m currently sitting at my desk. But He is also immanent, and in that way He’s absolutely everywhere, because He is sustaining every part of the cosmos in existence.

To use an analogy: suppose you’re playing the Sims, or World of Warcraft. The game is running on a computer. For one of the Sims in the game to ask “Where is the computer?” is like me asking, “Where is God”? The computer isn’t anywhere in the simulated world; and yet no part of the simulated world exists without the computer. The computer is inherently involved in making every part of the simulated world work.

So you don’t need to speak “into the air”; you can speak silently, in your head. God is everywhere, and will hear.

Still, I can understand his unease. To say a prayer (whether silently, in my head, or out “into the air”) to a God who might or might not exist means taking seriously the possibility that He might exist. For a committed atheist or agnostic, that must seem like giving away the store from the get go, and I, the man encouraging this rash act, must seem like Elwood P. Dowd introducing passersby to his friend Harvey.

And yet, God is here. Christ is here. And Christ always makes the first move. If you are wondering whether God might exist, that’s God nudging you. So if you’re curious, go ahead and ask Him to show Himself more fully. There are only two outcomes worth noting: either the days and weeks will pass and nothing will happen, and you’ll feel (briefly) like a fool; or you’ll enter into a bigger world than the one you live in now.

So give it a try! Taste, and see. The Lord is good.