It actually makes more sense for me to declare that there is a God, and that I know that God, than to declare that there is no God. For, since no one can truly comprehend what God must be, the concept of "God" has a multitude of meanings, each and all inadequate to fully account for a true God. To the extent that what we call God is to be found within us, I might be forgiven for finding something of that truth within and - mistakenly - presuming to speak as the voice of God. I would certainly be guilty of overreaching and misinterpretation, and my actions "in the name of God" might have dangerous consequences, but I would at least be basing those actions and interpretations on something that I experienced. On the other side, if I declare that God does not exist, the implication is that I am either denying the reality of a particular notion of God (for example, the old white-bearded man in a white gown who micro-manages our individual lives), or I am denying the reality of every one of the myriad conceptions of God, or I am presuming to fully comprehend the universe and to be in a position to know definitively that there cannot possibly be any kind of God whatsoever, or, if such a possibility exists, nevertheless there happens to be no God in existence.
Who is really more arrogant, the man who, raised in a longstanding religious tradition, becomes carried away by his religious enthusiasm to the point that he believes that God is speaking through him; or his neighbor, who believes that he knows enough about everything to be able to declare that every notion of God held by humankind throughout history is rubbish?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment