same article twice." I even had to establish two separate memberships just to argue both sides of the debate. They threw them both out, by the way, but kept my article arguing FOR the existence of God. Not taking any chances on the "vision" of management here, I have combined the thoughts into a single article.
The question: Is there a God?
What a question. It is certainly one of the more important questions of all time asked by the human race. But does the fact that the question arises from the mind of man, also mean that the existence of God arises there as well?
The choices are few and relatively clear cut. This short list covers most of the variations:
1. There is no God.
2. There is a God, but He is the creation of the human mind, and has no existence external to the human mind.
3. There is a God, with an existence external to the ideas of the human mind.
4. There may or may not be a God, and while we, the living, currently have little or no knowledge of Him, we may eventually know His existence to be the truth.
5. There may or may not be a God, but as humans we can never achieve certain knowledge of this even if He does exist.
It must be pointed out here that all of these positions have problems, and none can be established clearly without equivocation.
Most debates on this and similar subjects, have rather sharp lines drawn between two opposing camps, which usually adopt clear cut alternatives: namely, on the one hand number three above, or a coin-flip between numbers one and two.
Those who accept numbers one or two usually trot out a series of statements intended to delineate how there is literally no empirical evidence for the existence of God.
Those who adhere tenaciously to number three, usually appeal to an application of otherwise empirically verifiable evidence, ATTRIBUTING that evidence to God as its ultimate cause. Or, they simply say they "just believe" it to be true that God exists, which is the poorest argument possible, at least from a logical perspective.
But the following question remains. Is any combination of empirical evidence and human logic the best way (or even an acceptable way) to arrive at an appreciation for the possible existence of God? It is probably the best way we have found thus far to evaluate things that can be arrived at logically and empirically. But can God be a thing like that? Could God even possibly be such a thing?
Probably not. And probably not by definition. If He exists, God would have certain characteristics. And by virtue of these given characteristics, be almost completely unreachable by either empirical analysis or logic. Empiricism in particular is admittedly limited in its scope of applicability, excluding as it does, issues such as the existence of a being completely apart from the natural world.
And for the moment, I would ask that we ignore the possibility of Pantheism, so that it might be discussed separately later. It does offer some interesting alternatives that to some extent defeat a few of the arguments put forth here.
But taking a more conventional Western viewpoint, that God must by definition be a monotheistic separate-from-physical-reality Being, then it becomes easier to see why His inaccessibility through logic/empiricism points rather definitively, for non-believers, to the non-existence of God.
We are conditioned to accept that which fits nicely into our physical world of reality, and to reject that which is not a very good fit. Science has reinforced this perspective, which has served us quite well for the most part. But if we are talking about God, as defined in the Judeo-Christian tradition, we may need to broaden our perspective.
It could just as easily be said that the inverse is true . God could easily be inaccessible through these selected avenues (logic/empiricism), just as is mathematical truth unreachable through aesthetics, and the sound of a violin inaccessible through any analysis of the visible light spectrum. The violin’s sound is equally inaccessible through use of the tactile or taste apparatus of the human body. But the sound of a violin should certainly not be called untrue , impossible or nonexistent simply because we may have chosen an improper path to its discovery.
But, unlike God, the violin’s beautiful sound is accessible, appreciable and analyzable through another of the available human senses. Those who argue against the likelihood of the existence of God, frequently do so with the occasionally rather smug assurance that the COMBINATION of all human sensory input gives us a pretty good picture of reality. And they also argue, interestingly, that sensory awareness gives us absolutely NO data about God. Sensory input gives us a wealth of data about the Universe, but none about God, Himself, apart from the Universe.
But what of choice number five above? There may or may not be a God but we cannot really tell, one way or the other.
Deeply thought out arguments for this notion have been advanced with some success. One such example was offered by David Hume. His solution was to consider the question of God’s existence to be outside the purview of human intellect, and a position of skepticism should be the resulting posture of any thinking person.
But another viewpoint, of perhaps an even deeper significance (in large part because it aligns with option number four, above), was proposed by Alan Watts. Watts felt that the path to an awareness of God’s existence was not through logic, nor through the established creeds or dogma of any church. The correct path, indeed the only path, was through mystical awareness of God’s participation in the world and in our lives.
Mysticism is clearly outside the realm of that which is accessible to logic or empiricism. And for one reason or another, even the church(es) have recoiled from embracing it. But to this aversion, Watts replied, "A Christianity which is not basically mystical must become either a political ideology or a mindless fundamentalism." In short, without mysticism, Christianity is just another of the many ‘dead’ religions of humankind.
If mysticism is the true path to God, then all the talk in the world of empirical provability and logical consistency are just so much talk.
It is not at all surprising that this notion of a mystical necessity has not been well received by many strict adherents to the cause of fundamentalist Christianity. They rather like their established adherence to what outsiders refer to as dogma. For Watts, that adherence is what dooms them to failure in fully coming to grips with the nature of God.
Watts was an ardent advocate of mysticism as the only reliable and true path to God. Without Watts’ mysticism, those who claim there is a knowable God, are going to be increasingly forced to rely on creed, dogma and authority as their primary reference points for advancing arguments and supporting claims.
But does Allen Watts successfully make his case? Personally, I think he does, but each of us must decide on that issue. Most who offer opinions on this topic have already decided, and are no longer open to varying viewpoints.
It may be a bit too controversial for so-called believers to accept that rhetoric, dogma, authority and creedal adherence are insufficient and perhaps counterproductive to their cause. Mysticism might, indeed, seem too dangerous for consideration without some support from dogma and authority. But it may present the only viable path to a God totally outside the purview of science, logic, empiricism and sensory perception. The correct path, indeed the best path, if not the only path, said Watts, was through mystical awareness of God’s participation in the world and in our lives.
But if those who are "believers" recoil from the notion that mysticism is the answer to finding God, those who reject God's existence are even less likely to embrace mysticism. That is understandable. But I ask only that readers of this persuasion bear with me for a moment.
Obviously, anyone who has never experienced a mystical awareness of any kind, and who has otherwise been nurtured in a scientific/empirical viewpoint of reality, will find the subject of mysticism to be at least a bit eccentric to reality as he knows it. More likely, it will be considered completely out of line with reality as he knows it.
But can a believable (and even viable) argument be made that "mystical experiences never occur" just because I, as a single objective observer, have not had such an experience?
Every one of us (who is not colorblind) has a first experience of the color red, for example. Mystical experiences must be considerably more rare than experiences of the color, red, but they have been reported by many thousands of people, some of whom are, at least in some respects, acceptably reliable sources for even the most ‘empirically-bound critics’ of this possibility.
Rare as they may be, mystical experiences might, indeed, occur. And assuming for the moment that they do occur, they would seem to be clearly beyond the review of science and empiricism.
Psychologists might prefer to think of these experiences as delusional constructions by the human mind. Indeed, for those who accept the premise that true mystical experience does not exist, this is perhaps the only reasonable conclusion.
But while authority, creed and dogma might be swept aside as rather poor reasons for accepting things as true and real, mysticism cannot as easily be swept aside.
Let us examine a scenario. Empirically-oriented ‘Observer A’ has what to her seems to undeniably be a mystical experience. And as a result she is now faced with three choices, all of which are uncomfortable. She can abandon or extremely modify her established framework of looking at the world in order to fit this new experience into the picture. She can deny that she had the experience at all, or deny that it was what it appeared to be, resulting in the acceptance of the delusional mental construct referred to earlier. Or, she can try to relate the experience to others in an attempt to either explain it away, or gain support for believing it.
Unfortunately, while this last approach is an accepted procedure for science/empiricism, it has no applicability to experiences that fall outside the purview of science/empiricism.
No amount of discussion can result in the actual experience, itself. And no amount of discussion can provide the opportunity for replication, which is necessary for any scientific inquiry. Indeed, she may even feel unable to share the experience at all, due to fear of damaging her own credibility and standing in the scientific community.
But standing and credibility aside, if an experience is so intense that it forces one to believe something outside of previous experience, then that new experience, itself, elevates to newfound heights in the observer’s mind. Either that, or she accepts the label of being delusional, and moves on attempting to disregard the newly re-defined ‘aberrant’ experience.
Otherwise, the believer believes, and the inexperienced (at least inexperienced in the having of this particular experience) does not. The latter feels her overall and overarching experience in the world is strong enough evidence that the former is incorrect in her variant and unrepeatable observations.
In an attempt to come to some conclusion, I cite some of the more pressing reasons to reject the possibility of an existence of God external to the human mind. And I then offer the reasons why these are rejected.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE gives us a foundation for the examination of reality, but offers no direct evidence for God’s existence. However, if God is outside of our Universe, that is, outside of our reality, as it were, then He might certainly be outside the purview of Empiricism. I believe I have already made a case for this.
LOGICAL ARGUMENTS for the existence of God, can be identified as having logical holes. But logical arguments for the non-existence of God also have similar holes. Logical arguments have weaknesses that cannot be ignored on either side of this issue.
By most broadminded individuals, it is accepted that there are HISTORICAL, CULTURAL and MYTHOLOGICAL FACTORS in the formative development of all present-day religions. These factors are not sufficiently addressed by today’s religious adherents. But successful arguments on this basis, against the viability of a specific religion, or against that of several, or even against all religions, are arguments against human interpretation rather than against the existence of God. Yes, religions (Christianity included) have roots in mythologic and prehistoric mental constructs. Yes, the religion as it now stands, has historical development that can be traced and documented. Yes, that history does reveal some former stories that tend to detract from the credibility of this particular version. But no, that indictment is not against the existence of God. It is against the story, not the God. There is a difference.
But the cumulative effect of all these criticisms and others is such that the existence of God is seriously called into question by modern cultures. And to my mind, when the dust clears we are left with one primary obstacle to overcome in denying God’s existence. And that obstacle is mysticism.
If we can deny mysticism, then all the rest of the arguments, rationales, proofs and testimonies for the existence of an external God fall by the wayside rather easily. But how do we attack a mystical experience that we have not personally had, cannot share in, cannot analyze and therefore cannot admit to being real?
Certainly, we can adopt the view that since we cannot analyze it, it is not worth our time. But I think that would be a "cop out" of sorts. Some atheists are well known to adopt a view such as this, which typically denigrates the believer without having access to that in which the believer believes. If we assume something does not exist, and then forcefully argue for that assumption, the resulting argument can easily be no better than that of the fellow who argues for the existence of God just because ‘he believes’ it to be true .
So, what is the result of all this? I think the conclusion is clear. If we must admit the existence of mysticism, then we must admit the possibility of the existence of God. Mind you, not the necessity of His existence, but the possibility.
Therefore, what we must exclude from our world, to rid it from any and all delusions about the unlikely existence of God, is the existence of mystical awareness. If mystical awareness is an illusion, or a delusion, then the reasons for accepting the possibility of God’s existence external to the human mind, shrink dramatically to near zero.
Unfortunately, we are left with few choices here, except to simply state that we refuse to admit the likelihood of mysticism. But given that active choice, that decision, that conclusion, then we have cleared the path to rejection of God’s external existence as unlikely, improbable and very weakly supported.
We must reject an entire category of human experience, but we can do that if we choose to do so. However, this must be recognized as a choice, and not a given. And to be so selective about human experience, is usually more of a weakness than a strength. The inherent weakness of rejecting that which you have never experienced, is seldom acknowledged as a weakness by those who reject the existence of God, just because they don't know.
If one's argument falls into this category, then he is relying not on certainty, but on probability. Statistics. That which is "safe" and "reliable." In essence, he relies on a crutch, the very thing for which he criticizes the believer.
Does God exist? There may or may not be a God, and while many of us currently have little or no knowledge of Him, we may eventually know His existence to be the truth.
