There is a God and I know it.
As much as I can claim to "know" anything.
My knowing is an internal spiritual experience that cannot be externalized in the kind of "proof" that would persuade a devout atheist. but it has been proven to my satisfaction so many many times and I see so much evidence for it in my life and the lives of others around me that it is a settled question for me. Moments of doubt, yes, even after more than 40 years as a committed Christian, but on the whole it has given a fairly solid foundation to my life for which I give thanks daily.
The parent diary has 750+ comments so maybe some people will consider this a place to continue. I figured someone was eventually going to post a parallel/response diary so I figured it might as well be me.
I read the first 750 posts to the original diary and did not notice anyone else raising the classic analogy about faith and proof: the argument that asks you to prove that you have ever been in love, or even to prove there is such a thing as love. millions of people know a state as "love" when they look at their spouse or child or parent or friend that is very real to them even though it cannot be measured evaluated or subjected to scientific proof. To say then that "God is Love" is more than a pacifier phrase you learn in Sunday School, it becomes a way to help non-believers who have ever felt the Reality of Love understand why God is unexplainable and unverifiable in the same way.
As for, "I refuse to believe in God that would allow suffering in the world" others have taken up the standard argument about free will. I would just emphasize that I would not want to believe in a God that wanted me to be an automaton and the free will issue means a great deal to me. Also, the vast majority of suffering in the world is the fruit of poor free will choices on behalf of human beings--otherwise known as man's inhumanity to man.
I don't belong to a fundie denomination so I don't concern myself too much with things like biblical inerrancy (whether the earth was created in seven days or whether Jonah was actually swallowed by a big fish, etc.) . "Follow these rules or you'll be punished" holds no sway with me either. I've known more than a handful of atheists, at one time was in a relationship with one, and my oldest and dearest friend is a confirmed agnostic who tells me every so often that she will never become a Christian. It does not interfere in our relationship. I believe it is possible to be moral without being a Christian and it is possible to be moral without believing in the existence of any god. However, in my belief system, that hardwired yearning for justice within us that inspires people to want to behave in a moral fashion is a gift from God. I don't mind if other choose to believe that God is not the Source, I still believe what I believe and it works for me.
I believe in science, in evolution, and would describe myself as pro-rational in that I reject any idea that as a person of faith I have turned off my brain. I do not operate out of "blind faith" but on well-considered reflection and discernment, and indeed "reason" is one of the foundational components of my denominational identity (scripture, tradition, reason and experience).
I think there is an enormous difference between rejecting organized religion and rejecting God. Almost everyone understands that vast middle ground between believing in the old man with a beard on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or any other "invisible sky man" and believing there is nothing at all beyond that which our minds can grasp. Institutional religion is a man-made thing with flaws. But the instinctive desire to reach for and trust in something greater than ourselves has been part of the human make-up since time immemorial. The "God-shaped space within" has been mentioned by others upthread. We have developed more and more sophisticated ways of explaining it and understanding it over the years but it has expressed itself fairly universally in every place and time where humans have been present. That is more important than whether this group sprinkles holy water out of a gold-plated aspergium and this other group believes there is healing power in sacred wells.
It amazes me how many wrongwing conservative Christian evangelicals are happy to ailgn themselves with the "Who Is John Galt?" crowd without acknowledging any disconnect, but those guys somehow manage to avoid all manner of personal analysis so I guess it makes a crazy kind of sense.
I gave out a bunch of 4s but also want to acknowledge a couple of posts in particular:
Cyphrus42 wrote:
"As an athiest, I see the suffering first hand and I recognize it's not going to go away through prayer. I don't rely on God to end poverty (or insert some other form of man-made human suffering here). It's up to us."
I say that as a believer, i see suffering first hand and I recognize it's not going to go away through merely saying the kind of prayers that are not backed up with conviction and action. Prayer that is active goes forth and changes the world with us as Christ's hands and feet. God is relying on us to end poverty (and other forms of man-made human suffering). It's up to us.
druidica wrote:
"philosophical ethics are vastly superior to revealed dogma for producing consistent moral behavior. You at least have to know why you are chosing to act in a certain way. And not because "Big Daddy" said so."
I don't know if one is superior to the other but it is a very nice thing to have both, as I do.
baldandy wrote:
"To assert all knowledge in the Universe is within the realm of rational human reason is itself an irrational claim."
To that I can only say: Amen.
This is a legitimate political issue so long as GOPropaganda insists on the lie that "voting Christian" = "voting Republican" and falsely claims that the Democratic Party is intrinsically hostile to people of faith. When we argue among each other about faith issues in an overtly hostile way that reinforces the way GoOPers attempt to depict us. Isn't there a way for Progressive Christians to work side by side with atheists and agnostics and anyone of any faith or no faith who is willing to partner with us to save the world from the evil manifested in RoveCo? Talking about faith among people of widely varying faith practices without alienating anyone is a difficult, if not impossible task. The Blue Team has a difficult charge to keep in our pledge to honor diversity of many kinds, including religious diversity. But I believe we have to continue to try, and get our message of big tent religious tolerance together in spirit and in truth before the midterm campaigning heats up.
crossposted at Street Prophets