The Problem of Humanity’s Perception and Explanations of God - a podcast by David K Payne

Isaiah 55:8–9 (NLT)

“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.”

 

As a Philosophy student, I am well acquainted with various arguments concerning the existence of God. Firstly, I recognize that faith plays a vital role in arguments supporting the existence of God. However, it is important to note that many arguments against God's existence do not focus on discrediting faith as irrational. Instead, these arguments center around the seemingly irrationality of human explanations of a divine being and the irrational practices that arise from those explanations. Throughout history, theologians, philosophers, and individuals in general have attributed qualities such as perfection, power, goodness, and omniscience to this being. Considering these human explanations, scholars, philosophers, scientists, and others have criticized the contradictions inherent in these terms, using them as evidence of the irrationality of believing in a supreme being.

One of the more popular arguments against the existence of God is known as the "problem of evil." This argument takes into consideration the assertions that God is both all-powerful and all-good, raising the question of why evil exists if the world is governed by such a supreme being. This argument appears rational if we accept that human explanations are sufficient to understand the nature of a being like God. Our concept of being all-good implies the absence of evil. Why would a baby be born with cancer? Why do events like the Holocaust occur or human conditions like slavery persist? If we assume that God is all-good as we understand goodness, then God must not be all-powerful. If evil exists in human existence and God is all-good, then God must be unable to prevent it. Alternatively, if God is all-powerful and capable of stopping evil, yet evil still exists, then God must not be all-good and could potentially be malevolent.

I am aware of the various theistic arguments countering this problem, suggesting that free will is not possible if evil does not exist. This reasoning aligns with many creationist explanations that propose God allows humanity to choose or have a say in their existence, and because of human choices, evil exists. However, these arguments overlook an important reality: evil was possible even before any choices were made and was thus allowed by God. If God permits the mere possibility of evil, how can God truly be all-good?

I propose that the rationality and irrationality of human endeavors to explain God and the unknown are simply reflections of our limited understanding and existence. We attempt to provide logical explanations for a being that eternally exists and seems present in all lives throughout history simultaneously. Most religious explanations of God even contradict the texts they rely on to explain the existence of such a being. Consider the declarations of the Hebrew text mentioned earlier. God is described as having ways and thoughts that differ from ours, yet we continue to employ our own ways and thoughts to comprehend the concept of God. It is no wonder that intellectuals find ample room to criticize the notion of God. A human explanation of such a being can never suffice.

One valuable aspect of studying Philosophy is that it has led me to place God on a level that transcends my comprehension and attempts to explain. The concept of God defies explanation, and thus, the power, goodness, and consciousness of such a being cannot be adequately captured by my understanding of these terms. Concerning a being like God, notions of good and evil, power and will, consciousness and nature are not confined by my definitions and explanations. Instead, God defines these attributes for himself as the one who gives life, rather than being defined by those experiencing that life.

Many people have asked me, "David, how has studying philosophy affected your faith?" To which I respond, it has strengthened my belief in God and elevated God to a position where such a being belongs—beyond explanation. I am no longer compelled to prove the rationality of this belief. I firmly believe in the existence of a being unlike any other—an entity unseen and unexplained in terms that I comprehend. I believe that God's existence is beyond question. That, my friend, is the essence of faith—a substance that cannot be proven not because it is irrational, but because God embodies the definition of everything, and everything only attests to God's existence.

One philosopher that is intriguing to me on many levels, Author Schopenhauer, argues that will and representation are the two fundamental forces at work bringing definition to each other and all that exist in the world.

Schopenhauer's philosophy revolves around the notion that will and representation are intimately intertwined and cannot be understood independently of each other. He argues that we can only know representation because it is through our senses that we perceive the world around us. We have access to a variety of objects, experiences, and phenomena, which are all manifestations of representation.

At the same time, Schopenhauer posits that the will, which he considers the fundamental reality behind all phenomena, is not directly accessible to our knowledge. While we experience the effects of the will through our desires, drives, and motivations, we do not have direct knowledge or insight into the will itself. The will remains a hidden, unconscious force that drives our actions and shapes our experiences.

In Schopenhauer's philosophy, representation provides evidence of the will. Through the objects and experiences that we perceive, we gain insights into the underlying will that gives rise to those representations. However, our understanding of the will is indirect and limited, as it is filtered through the lens of representation or human existence.

Though Schopenhauer did not use his philosophy to draw the same conclusions as I, I see will as God, and representation as the natural world and human existence. Religion uses the conditions and experiences (representation) of human existence to try and define God, when in fact it is God (will) that gives life and defines human existence. Our experience of life (representation) only attests to God’s existence (will). Representation does not define will, it only attests to its truth. One possible ally I have in my argument is Carl Jung.

Jung considered Schopenhauer's will as a manifestation of the divine or a representation of the numinous aspect of reality. He saw it as a fundamental force underlying human existence and believed that it was interconnected with the broader collective unconscious. Jung's interpretation of Schopenhauer's will as a form of divinity can be found in his writings, particularly in his book "Psychological Types."

I introduced these two scholars, Schopenhauer, and Jung, to emphasize that the explanation and definition of God go beyond mere human experiences and understanding of the human condition. It is not only religion that grapples with explaining the origin of life, but our mere existence also dictates we grapple with, and ponder these thoughts. However even in the most secular beliefs, there is a necessary element of faith that I will explore further in subsequent writings. Therefore, faith is not irrational; it is simply the term we use to explain the incomprehensible. Humanity is faced with a choice: we can either explain the understanding of human existence through nature and science, which suggests that what exists, and is limited by time and power, gives life. Or we can explain our experiences and observations in spiritual terms—a divine presence, an energy or force that is unseen but realized and possesses limitless power and potential, even though it remains inexplicable. Personally, I choose the latter. I am not a result of chance, but rather an expression of a supreme being who grants and defines life, even though I am unable to fully articulate the nature of that being. I’m ok with letting God be God and where that type of faith exists, anything is possible.

Best

David

Further episodes of "the DKP Word"

Further podcasts by David K Payne

Website of David K Payne