Hi nebula,
I’m facing a dilemma in this argument. On the one hand, I’m glad you came to the conclusion that God exists, and that you figure the Bible is generally compatible with that belief. I certainly don’t want to argue against that. On the other hand, it makes me sad that your particular approach to theological questions led you out of Mormonism. I would like you and respect you, regardless, but I have to admit that the feeling is there. But it seems to me that you are smart and fair-minded enough to see that there might be flaws in your arguments for faith (as well as mine), so I don’t really think that anything I say would cause your “skeptical impulse” to “bubble up and dismantle, intellectually, whatever metaphysics [you] build.” So I guess what I want to accomplish by arguing in favor of giving high priority to special revelation (especially your own) is to outline why I think that sort of thing can shore you up against your skeptical impulses. Anyway, I hope you know that nothing I say is meant to tear down your faith.
#1, The problem that I have with this is that it avoids the whole issue of whether or not the questions ‘the Greeks’ asked are right or have any value. It could be that the ancient Hebrews were frankly too engaged in other things to get ‘deep’ and didn’t develop the concepts necessary to process the idea of God as pure infinite Spirit in any way that would be beneficial to them. The issues that the prophets dealt with didn’t much touch on technical specifications about God’s nature, they focused on some pretty pressing matters such as being conquered and exiled (again). Should I conclude from their lack of philosophical exposition that God is against that sort of thing then?
I actually meant that argument to sidestep those questions. My point was to show that, whether the Greek questions and answers were right or not, the Hebrews did not start with a philosophical argument for the existence of a Necessary Being. They started with special revelation to prophets and personal experiences that led people to believe the witness of the prophets. So it seems to me that God is perfectly comfortable with people starting there, and I see no counterexamples throughout the Bible. (Maybe I just wasn’t looking hard enough, though.) When Christ established His Church, what did he do? He chose certain men to be
witnesses of the foundational events. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner *stone” *(Eph. 2:20) And when these apostles were confronted about their teachings, they didn’t philosophize–they witnessed. “For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20).
#2, That first question is my very question! Why the Bible? Why not the Bhagavad Gita, or Koran, or better yet, nothing at all? I argue it is because the Bible’s general story of hte all powerful, universal God sacrificed Himself to redeem His finite creation. That makes a lot of sense at the get go. I am not completely discounting any space for personal revelation, or ‘experimentation’, but for that to work the overall story has to make a lot of sense first.
I agree. If you are going to allow room for faith, you have to allow that the story
might be true, first.
The main issue is that a truly Necessary Being is One and infinite, that is a consequence of the argument. Multiplying infinite beings makes no sense, because they would infringe on each other’s infinity and they would not be infinite. The trinity doesn’t cause problems as far as that goes, because the three Persons are part of one infinite Being.
I guess I just don’t buy that the argument from contingency really proves that there must be a single, Necessary Being. I think it’s only really strong enough to prove that one or more things “just are.” After that, I think the reasoning gets stretched a little thin. I mean, if two “infinite Beings” impinge on each other’s infinity, it seems to me that one finite being would impinge on an infinite Being’s infinity just as well. I’m not sure how the word “infinity” is being applied here, but in math class they always said that infinity plus infinity equals infinity. (Hopefully, the last few sentences made some kind of sense.)
Ok, I’m going to give you a personal example to explain why I think the way I do about this issue.
The thing is that I have my own “skeptical impulses” that I’ve had to deal with. I grew up as a Mormon, and so I was always told that I had to gain my own “testimony,” based on personal revelation by the Holy Spirit. And when I quit being an indifferent teenager, I did. I even had a number of very surprising experiences that confirmed to me that it wasn’t just my “feelings,” that were involved. I had to admit, on the other hand, that I sometimes misinterpreted what God was saying, even though I was quite sure that God was speaking, given all the experiences I had had. I figured that was ok, because my experience had been that this was something you have to grow into. But what if I was misinterpreting what God was saying to me about really important stuff?
For example, like most people I have my own perennial problems that I continually have to try to repent about, and seek God’s forgiveness. I would pray for forgiveness, try to repent, and eventually would feel God’s love and forgiveness communicated by the Holy Spirit. One day my “skeptical impulses” kicked into gear. What if this was one of those “miscommunications”? What if I felt forgiven because I subconciously wanted to feel that way? I was really worried about that. I decided to fast and pray about it for a day. I told God that I didn’t want to be some kind of “sign seeker,” but I was really worried about this issue, and I asked for something extra–I didn’t specify what–so I would know whether I should trust my sense of what God was communicating, or not. I didn’t have any “feelings” all day, even though I prayed repeatedly. Finally, I knelt down to pray by my bedside at the end of the day, and started to ask one more time.
Right then, my wife piped up. She had been reading the Book of Mormon, and said, “Hey, this is interesting.” She then read Mosiah 26:30 in the Book of Mormon, which says, “Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.” I was stunned. My wife almost never pipes up like that about such things, and she chose to do so at the exact moment I was praying for an answer just like the one contained in those verses.
Maybe this doesn’t impress you, but for me, it was exactly what I needed. Because of my OWN experiences with God, I feel I can say that God speaks to regular people, and He backs up his words, when needed.
So this is why this issue hits home for me. I actually got a minor in philosophy in college, so I knew about all the different arguments for the existence of God, and criticisms of those arguments. I was pretty well read about arguments for and against my specific faith. None of that could really build much conviction within me, but my personal experiences with God have.
I still entertain doubts, and I recognize that I don’t always have perfectly persuasive arguments to stave off criticisms of my faith. But now it doesn’t seem so urgent to have all the loose ends tied off. Don’t get me wrong–I see the value in having an intellectually consistent faith. It’s just that now the loose ends seem more like puzzles to be solved than crises.
…