The movie Mystery Men is underrated. It's on Netflix right now, but I prefer to watch my VHS copy because I'm a purist. It's like listening to the Bee Gees on cassette.
My second favorite mystery man is Invisible Boy because his superpower is hilarious.
Invisible Boy: I can only become invisible when no one's watching.
The Shoveler: So you're only invisible to yourself?
Invisible Boy: No. If I look at myself, I become visible again.
Mr. Furious: So you can only become invisible when absolutely nobody is watching you?
Invisible Boy: Yes.
Blue Raja: Do forgive our incredulity, but I'm wondering how you can be certain you've achieved transparency at all?
Invisible Boy: Well, when you go invisible ... you can feel it.
Best idea for a superhero ever. Turns out he did have the power of invisibility, and he pretty much saves the day at the end of the movie. Regardless, when he was first introduced, he made an assertion that was (seemingly) impossible to test. The natural and understandable reaction was incredulity.
God has a similar assertion—the assertion that he exists but that he can't be perceived by the five senses. It's an existence assertion, and it can't be tested. We lack sufficient persuasive evidence of God’s existence.Let's say you're an independent, external auditor, and you go to audit a client's inventory, but the client says that nobody’s allowed see any of their inventory until after their IPO. You've got to give an adverse opinion, and you'd probably assume fraud. (And, yes, the inventory balance is material. Those kind of questions are why people don't like us.)
God doesn’t have to be hidden—doesn’t have to be intangible. Therefore, you shouldn’t test God's existence like you'd test the existence of an intangible asset because God chooses to be hidden. He's omnipotent; he's capable of revealing his existence.
Some people believe that God keeps himself hidden because we couldn't handle it if God revealed himself to us fully—our faces would melt like in Raiders of the Lost Ark. First off, I'd be okay with a partial reveal so long as it's a persuasive partial reveal. Also, in heaven, believers will be in the direct presence of God with, presumably, unmelted faces. Whatever physics God has in heaven whereby humans and their faces can withstand the magnitude of his presence—he should be able to duplicate that on earth. Pretty much the omnipotence thing again.
Some claim that since love is a choice, God doesn't reveal himself to us because if we experienced his presence firsthand, we would be overwhelmed, and we would be coerced into loving him, but since by definition coercion robs us of our free will, it's not a choice and, therefore, it's not really love. However, if experiencing God's presence firsthand coerced us into loving God, then Satan—who was like a managing partner angel with direct access to God himself—wouldn't have fallen.
Also, just because something is so unbelievably, mind-blowingly good that only a complete dumbass, whose head is lodged deep within his butt, would reject it, doesn't not constitute coercion. I'm not coerced by Red Velvet Cheesecake, even though it's so damn good, I'd punch an old lady in the neck to get a slice. Neither is my free will infringed upon by oxygen, even though breathing it is so good I can't stop even if I wanted to.
A weird corollary of the coercion argument is the Sally Kyte Corollary. My mom never hid from me as a kid just to make sure I loved her for real. She wasn't worried that I was coerced into loving her because moms naturally have that effect on their kids. Even now that I'm a big boy, she'd be a total weirdo to hide from me to make sure I loved her. She's a weirdo for other reasons, like drinking buttermilk and referring to me as a “big boy.”
If you're a CPA, specifically and auditor, Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) dictate the following:
- "To obtain reasonable assurance, the auditor must not be satisfied with audit evidence that is less than persuasive," (AU 326.13) And ...
- "The auditor should prepare audit documentation that is sufficient to enable an experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the audit, to understand ... the conclusions reached thereon." (AU 230.08)
Giving God's existence assertion an unqualified opinion without that kind of evidence is just bad GAAS. Fart joke. Classy.
I don’t require 100% assurance that God's exists. I'm just looking for an unqualified opinion.
But the converse is also true. It's impossible for me to disprove the existence of anything that's imperceptible. Therefore an imperceptible God may exist. And I may have the power of invisibility when absolutely no one is watching, even though I've never felt it.
Mystery Men is amazing. Gotta love the scene when they trash the limo.
ReplyDeleteI've recently come to learn that some aspects of life are about the feeling. For instance I'm in addiction recovery right now and part of why I've struggled for years is I was trying to recover with a number of mental, cerebral mechanisms and techniques. Once I started learning in therapy about my unmet emotional needs, I've started experiencing the best recovery so far to date.
In my view, the similarity here is that I could make all sorts of rational, cerebral sounding arguments for the existence of God but the feelings and experiences I've had are far better evidence to me of his existence.
Cam - You've hit on something that I think about a lot: belief in God works. It's practicable. Atheism/agnositicism not so much. However, religious belief is impossible (for me) without some way to verify its truthfulness.
DeleteWhat is zero to the zero power?
ReplyDeletePretty sure it's 1. Hold on ... Google agrees that it's 1.
DeleteHmmm, something from nothing.
DeleteEd, are you God?
DeleteI agree with a lot of your assertions, Greg: that we have a difficult time proving God is really there, and even that many of the arguments for why that is are flimsy at best, deceptive at worst. However, I believe that God does actually reveal himself. Or perhaps from your perspective, I choose to believe, but in any case, I read of experiences that people have from around the world (and it seems especially in underdeveloped communities) in which God does make Himself known – through miracles, or tangible events, or even audible voices. My personal take is that we, in the western developed world, have embraced empirical thought so forcefully that we always find an explanation for everything (even if that explanation involves mass delusion, schizophrenia or other illness), and have refused to even allow for something outside of our rational explanations. In places where that is not the societal ethic, God works more freely. Does that mean He limits Himself because of our western mindset? Perhaps. Or perhaps, you’d just see that just another way of giving God an “out”.
ReplyDeleteOver all, though, I’d disagree philosophically with your response in the comment above: "religious belief is impossible (for me) without some way to verify its truthfulness." For me, I’d say that I’ve found life impossible without the hope that a belief in God gives me. No hope, no life (for me). The thought of that life without God has left me pretty hopeless in the past, and so I choose to believe in a God who loves me completely, always has the best in mind for me, even if I don’t understand or can’t explain His behavior. I’m sure from your side, that seems less like hope and more like an extended stay with Nurse Ratchet. But I think we know each other well enough for you not to think me crazy, and me not to think you a nihilist.
I just think God isn’t changed by your or my doubts, by our questions, or our theorizing.
He simply is.
We could put the two ideas together: religious belief is impossible for me without some way to verify its truthfulness, and life is impossible without the hope that a belief in God gives me. Maybe we should first take a Prozac and then put the two ideas together. The main purpose of this blog is to analyze purpose from the perspective of an agnostic. I haven't done too much of that yet, but that's where I'm headed with all of this. Thanks, Rich, for taking the time to read the blog and comment on it.
DeleteThis statement sums it all up: "I’ve found life impossible without the hope that a belief in God gives me."
ReplyDeleteThat has nothing to do with a god existing but everything to do with the need for people to believe in god because they otherwise couldn't make sense of life.
There's so much to wade through here, Greg, thanks for sharing your views and for encouraging the resultant conversation.
ReplyDeleteI'm most struck with your statement that, "God has a similar assertion—the assertion that he exists but that he can't be perceived by the five senses." Where does God assert this? And, of course, you can only use the Bible to answer (unfair, I know, but those are my rules).
I agree that human-perceived five-senses experience of God cannot be *demanded*. That view is biblically justifiable. But the Bible is chock full of people seeing God (Moses), hearing him audibly (pretty much every Old Testament prophet) and touching and likely smelling him if one believes in Jesus as God in the biblical Trinity. As for tasting, well, no examples come readily to mind. Which I'm fine with.
And lots of folks today report audible and sometimes tactile experiences of God.
I guess I just think you need to be careful with stating God's assertions on his behalf. He doesn't assert that one can't experience him with our human senses. It seems like what you're saying here is simply that you haven't.
That adds some good nuance. Maybe I should have said he can't be "verified" by the five senses "unless he initiates and allows said verification." It's kind of hard to communicate in a succinct manner without sounding like an ass.
DeleteI agree that people report sensory experiences of God. Unfortunately, that leads to additional questions. Not the least of which is that people report sensory experiences of Allah. The existence of Allah and the God of Christianity are mutually exclusive. How would one determine who had a genuine sensory experience of the divine?
Don't you mean you would disclaim since it's a result of a scope limitation instead of rendering an adverse opinion?
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Good call, Mang. "The inability to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence ... may require the auditor to qualify his or her opinion or to disclaim an opinion" (AU 508.22). "An adverse opinion states that the financial statements do not present fairly the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the entity" (AU 508.10). Since lack of evidence does not demonstrate misstatement, a disclaimer rather than an adverse opinion is appropriate. We can't disprove, but we can disclaim an opinion on God's existence, and that's agnosticism. Thanks for the comment!
DeleteInteresting. Has God hidden himself because he loves to play the part of the distant father ("Of course I love you son. That's why I'm always at work.") or has he given us sufficient proof, but because it's not the proof we want to see, we reject it as proof and disqualify our opinions? (I love the auditing language in this blog).
ReplyDeleteWe have scripture. Scripture itself has proofs (a lot of which can be argued, and most Christians are not prepared for textual criticism due to weak teaching - ie God used a human typewriter). But if Scripture is to be believed, then God gave more proof than could be demanded of any deity by sending his Son. And men loved the darkness. God fed the Israelites in the wilderness, and showed his presence and performed proofs and they complained against him and whored after gods of their own hands. God ruled over the kingdom of Israel, and they shut their eyes and ears. God has created amazing wonders and natural laws that reveal his nature, and we ask "Where is he?"
I tend to dismiss present accounts of "feeling God" myself as well, because verification is impossible. But that being said, I also think, had I been a Jew alive in 1st century AD, I would have dismissed God's revelation as Jesus Christ as well. The problem isn't a lack of proofs, the problem is sin and my own preference to rule my own life.