The "Something" Out There is Personal

Michio Kaku offers an interesting take on transcendence and whether or not God exists.

Interestingly enough, this famous physicist ends up basically where I left this blog yesterday.  There is a transcendent reality, but it isn't personal.

I would like to argue that this transcendent reality is indeed a personal reality, and I would like to start with a common parable--one which I have used in my sermons a couple of times--the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

This parable is about a group of blind men who stumble upon an elephant in their path.  They strive to see the elephant.  Each touches a different part of the elephant, and then they argue about the nature of that elephant.  One argues the elephant is like a spear--he touched the tusk.  One argues the elephant is like a hose--he touched the trunk.  One argues the elephant is like a wall--he touched the torso.  One argues the elephant is like a rope--he touched the tail.  One argues the elephant is like a tree trunk--he touched the leg.  And so on and so forth.  Each believed his piece of the elephant constituted the entire reality of the elephant, but they were all wrong.  In one way, they were all right, but in another, they were all wrong.

Folks like to use this analogy/parable and apply it to religions.  Most religions worship a transcendent reality, but how does one know what that reality is like?  The parable suggests no one really knows for sure--all are blind and only "see" one part.  None has the big picture.

This might be an interesting argument to talk about the nature of religions except for one small problem--the parable doesn't work unless someone knows what the whole elephant looks like to begin with.  Only an outsider who knows what the whole elephant looks like can say, "All the guys were right, and all the guys were wrong."  Therefore, if you want to use this parable to talk about religion--and how religion views God, then you either have to admit you are blind (and only have a limited knowledge of God yourself) or that you somehow see the entire elephant.  At this point, you've actually backed yourself into the proverbial corner.

Unless there is someone who has actually seen the nature of God.  Unless there is someone who has encountered the transcendence and become immanent.

Christianity is the only religion which professes such a thing to have happened.  Christianity is the only religion which claims the transcendent reality of God took on flesh and lived among us.  Christianity is the only religion which claims we don't have to work our way up to God, but God worked His way down to us.

If we as humankind are striving to work our way up to a transcendent reality, we will never make it. We will never know what kind of transcendence is out there.  It is an impossibility.  But, if that transcendent reality has made itself known...that changes everything.

Christianity claims Jesus came to reveal the true nature of God--being fully God and fully human, and this claim grounds itself in the writings of Scripture.  Jesus claimed to be God and to know God.

The claim was radical--absolutely radical--especially given the Jewish culture to which Jesus entered into. It would have done more than raise eyebrows.  It would have been cause to see Jesus as insane, dangerous, blasphemous, even evil.  We see hints of this throughout the gospel stories.

Which brings me to the crux of the argument--if the transcendent indeed became immanent in Jesus, then the stories about Jesus must be reliable.  Are they?

Another blog topic.

Why I Think There's Something Out There

Luc Ferry in his book A Brief History of Thought offers a scathing criticism of materialists and those who follow the philosopher Nietzsche's lead by saying there is no such thing as transcendence.  In a nutshell, Ferry calls them hypocrites.  No one lives as if there are no universal rules.  No one lives as if there is no transcendence.  Everyone has some sort of belief in the common good.  Everyone.

Ferry is no intellectual light weight, and his criticisms go beyond just this one.  I encourage folks to read this tome of Ferry's even though he does not cross into belief in God.  Though he finds the Christian narrative very, very appealing, Ferry wants to work out his own salvation.  This is his choice.

Yet, his argument about transcendence is very important I think.  Everyone lives as if there is a transcendent reality.  Everyone lives asking, "What should I do?"  Everyone lives as if there is a frame of ethics which supersede individuals, cultures, and nations.  C.S. Lewis did some fascinating research finding that nearly every civilized culture has some form of the Golden Rule within it.  Why?

Lewis makes his case in this fashion: if there is such a thing as natural law--a higher morality, then there must be a law giver.  Hence God exists.  While a powerful argument, it is not absolute.  Folks can argue, and they do that the discovery of such laws might be humankind's evolution and discovery of what is needed for a fully functional human society.  Evolution has produced the Golden Rule; it is not given by God.

The criticism is duly noted, but this does not make the Golden Rule transcendent.  In fact, it lessens the universality of the rule.  For if evolution decreed that the Golden Rule is necessary for civilization now, evolution could easily lead us to disperse the Golden Rule if it gets in the way of the survival of the species or our own personal survival.  After all, evolution is governed not by any transcendence which tells us what we should do, but it is governed by natural selection and genetic mutation.  The Golden Rule is necessary for survival now, but what if it becomes a hindrance in the future?  Evolution would say, discard it!!!

Those who believe in transcendence would not discard the rule so easily.  In fact, they would continue to hold onto it despite any pressure to discard it because it is a universal law.  And if Ferry is correct, even evolutionists who are convinced the Golden Rule came about by evolution would continue to hold onto it even if evolution tries to pull us away from it.  (I personally believe this is already the case, for in evolution, the weakest members of any species--sans humankind--are dispatched by nature rather quickly.  Only human beings care for their physically and mentally ill.  Only humans disrupt the natural process in this manner--including many evolutionists.)

The question in my book is: can someone claim there is no transcendence and then act as if there is?  This kind of life, in my opinion, would eventually lead to a mental break down.  There is just no integrity in it.  Perhaps this is why Nietzsche went insane when he saw a man beating a poor horse.  Perhaps he felt compassion for this animal, and yet he had absolutely nothing to fall back upon to say why this abuse was wrong.  One cannot have one's cake and eat it too.

Ferry argues in his book there is indeed transcendence although his argument and mine diverge at this point.  If you would like to read his, I again encourage you to read his thoughts.  Mine is a little less philosophical at this point and a little more realistic.  If everyone acts as if there is transcendence and has acted as if there is transcendence, then there is transcendence.  It's not scientifically air tight.  It's not measurable.  It just is.  Kind of like love.  It just is.

But how do we know that this transcendence is God?  How do we know this transcendence is personal?

Well, today's blog is long enough.  Perhaps tomorrow.