Website & Content © Grant Bowater
5. A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH
6. IS THERE A GOD?
7. ORIGINS
8. WHICH GOD?
9. UNDERSTANDING PHILOSOPHY
10. CONSIDERING TRUTH
11. THE RULE OF FAITH
12. ESTABLISHING TRUTH
6. IS THERE A GOD?
COPYRIGHT: This book and all excerpts are the sole copyright of author Grant Bowater. No reproductions for any purpose may be made without the prior permission of the author obtained in writing.Is there anyone of sound mind who has not at some time or another wondered about the existence of God? Surely the mystery of our origin and the indeterminable existence of God must be the most enigmatic issue of all time.
For those raised in a religious culture the question of God's existence has never been an issue. God just is, even if He is somewhat difficult to prove or even know. But for those of the modern age raised in a Western or Communist culture, the existence of God is not so clear-cut.
It can't be denied however that the concept of a greater more powerful being who orchestrated the universe, our world, and all that is in it, is one that has endured for as long as we have evidence of human life. All the world's religions both past and present are plain evidence that it is both logical and rational to believe life has its source in a greater power than man or mere nature alone.
But does the sheer weight of numbers sustained over thousands of years all believing in some kind of God eliminate all doubt? - of course not. In our modern era, with the explosion of technological advances and hugely advanced scientific knowledge, more and more people have concluded that God is but a myth, perpetuated in bygone eras to explain the hitherto inexplicable. In our enlightened age belief in God is redundant - or is it?
Because an objective meaning and purpose are inextricably linked to a creative designer of life, it becomes essential to address questions of origin from both an evolutionary and religious view.
Embarking upon a rationale for a powerful creative being that invested purpose and meaning in life, as we know it, is not that difficult. There either is a God or there isn't. Surely it's just a matter of giving reasonable examination to the arguments presented both for and against? - if only it were that simple! In reality, the most likely result is just more confusion, and an inconclusive outcome. Yet to achieve uncertainty I suggest is satisfactory enough. For this opens one's reasoning to consider the possibility of God's existence and the probability of actually discovering God increases dramatically.
It must be said that the true atheistic position is virtually indefensible. One very simple application of crude logic proves this. For instance, we must accept that man's knowledge is limited - no individual knows everything there is to be known. In fact all of man's knowledge collectively is finite. If we envisage a circle encompassing all that is known to man, it is feasible that God exists outside that body of knowledge.
While theoretically rational, if God only exists outside all that is known to man, it would be justifiable to dismiss the existence of God as a mere fanciful notion. But this is not the case since numerous people vehemently declare a personal knowledge of God. It is just that "proving" God beyond any shadow of a doubt has yet to be accomplished. Consequently, we need only apply this "circle of knowledge" principle to those individuals who have no belief in God. It is therefore both rational and logical to accept that the knowledge of God may well exist outside the body of knowledge that any one individual may possess.
Let's now examine the rationale proposing that God may in fact actually exist. In doing so I'll start with the contrary approach.
There are a variety of logical reasons why the existence of God is justifiably questioned. These include:
1. The chaos that erupts from time to time throughout the world denies the influence of a powerful God;
2. The suffering endured by so many throughout history denies the influence of a caring God;
3. The apparent evidence of evolution denies a creative God;
4. The multiplicity of religious views denies the credibility of a distinct or specific God;
5. The perceived absence of an unequivocal response from God whenever an individual calls upon Him denies the existence of a personal God.The arguments denying God's existence are perpetuated by the very fact that if He does actually exist, even to those who do believe in Him, He is so obviously intangible and elusive.
My approach will be to systematically address each of these reasons for denying the existence of God and in addition provide a clear and logical rationale why these very reasons actually validate His creative purpose and the meaning of life.
Before dealing comprehensively with the specific rationale for God's existence that I have proposed, it is necessary to attend to some of the more general and basic arguments for His existence. I acknowledge that for those who have already given considerable investigation to God's existence, they will undoubtedly find most of the following somewhat familiar. My apologies if you find this tedious - you may wish to skip directly to the section headed Framework.
In this chapter I want to begin by looking at a logical basis for considering the existence of God in the first instance. I'll follow this up with two further chapters, the first covering a simplistic review of evolution, the second providing a rudimentary comparison of the alternative religious views.
Typically, two common approaches are frequently adopted for arguing the existence of God. These are confronting evolution head on, or debating the merits of the various religions. I will do neither, merely providing a simplistic general summary or overview for both, before launching into the primary rationale this book addresses. If comprehensive argument and debate of evolution and other religious views were sufficient for substantiating the existence of God, I wouldn't need to be writing this book. Consequently, I have no intention of covering familiar territory for which there already exists innumerable resources.
As frustrating as this may be to proponents of evolution and adherents of other faiths, my primary objective is to approach the argument for God's existence from a different angle. I intend to present a logical and rational argument validating God's existence from the basis of the lack of evidence for His existence. As paradoxical as this appears, I trust the rationale of it will become clear soon enough. If God does indeed exist, there must be valid and justifiable reasons why the circumstances of His existence are so questionable. This matter I intend to effectively resolve.
Over time the concepts of God, the origin of life, and any related purpose or meaning have been expressed in a plethora of alternative religions and philosophies. Consequently, consideration of all possibilities would be virtually insurmountable. Fortunately there is no need to do so. History has conveniently narrowed the range to but a few viable well subscribed options.
There are fundamentally just four basic categories from which the origin of life can be explained. These are a singular God, multiple gods, no God, or alien colonization.
The concept of a singular God or monotheism, presents two contrasting interpretations. One is a God who is personal, intimately involved, and caring. The other is a God who is impersonal, aloof or detached, and indifferent. The concept of a singular God is the foremost and more popular concept of God universally, yet we acknowledge considerable variations on the degree of those qualities that define the nature and character of this God.
The concept of multiple gods or pantheism is commonly found in Eastern societies but we also recognize that multiple deities were popular among ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Multiple gods are frequently attributed to the various forces of nature, thereby explaining the chaos generated in life when these forces create havoc on the earth. Whenever any kind of disaster strikes, the "gods" are displeased, and conversely when things go well, the "gods" are appeased.
The concept of no God or gods at all (atheism) is a more recently popular humanistic development. I would suggest that this modern-day phenomenon derived from the almost universally accepted theory of evolution, is the more difficult of the four concepts to sustain.
Finally we find an increasingly more popular concept of alien colonization of the earth. This theory however merely diverts the foundational question of origin rather than addressing it. If life on earth is merely the product of alien transference some thousands or millions of years ago, we are still left with the question of what was their origin?
While the developed world has enthusiastically embraced the evolutionary theory for life, the question of meaning and purpose has become even more significant. Evolution of its very nature is random and arbitrary, logically defying any kind of meaning or purpose and similarly denying the existence of any God or gods. Deductively then, if evolution as the singular origin of life is true, then our lives are inherently meaningless and without purpose.
It is evident therefore, that meaning and purpose must be found elsewhere if we are to accept any aspect of evolution.
It is true that the majority of people on the earth today believe in a singular God. Until more recently (since Darwin floated the concept of evolution), virtually everyone believed in God or gods. Man has consistently exhibited an inherent readiness to believe in a power greater than himself. Three basic observations lead naturally to this belief and form the substance of the argument that there may well be a God.
Firstly, man acknowledges his creative capacity and employs creative design in many varying ways - art, architecture, technological invention, scientific and medical advances, fashion, etc. Because we can create, we can't help but recognise the evidence of creative design in every aspect of nature. Therefore it is perfectly logical to deduce (Darwin's theory aside) that the wonders of this world infer a creator. Again, evolution deceives us into accepting random chance as the origin of all the incredibly amazing and complex facets of life, yet simple logic must render us incapable of totally dismissing a creative Being. Certainly prior to evolution being made available as an alternative option, the proposition of a creative Being initiating all life was virtually indisputable.
Secondly, as free-thinking rational beings of an arguably superior intelligence to any other life form, we recognise our inherent sense of self-worth. It is because we value human life so highly we find it inconceivable to accept that death is the ultimate end. Death is an abhorrent reality that defies the sense of value we place on human life. Consequently it is only reasonable to presume that death cannot be the absolute finality that it appears to be. Because man is powerless against death it is only natural to presume that a greater Being must hold the power over death and probably be able to transform our lives beyond death.
Thirdly, we can regard the concept of control. Clearly mankind acknowledges the tremendous advantage he has over all other life forms in that he alone among the species is capable of exerting considerable control over a wide variety of circumstances and events. Because our control is not absolute but limited, it is reasonable to suppose that perhaps there exists a greater power than us exercising a superior level of control to which we become subject. This becomes evident in occasions when people are confronted with periods of extreme difficulty. In such situations, it is not uncommon for people to resort to earnest prayer in the hope that a greater power with more control may be able to rescue them from their dire circumstance. To consider that perhaps there is a God who set life in motion, who maintains a measure of control beyond our understanding, and is capable of manipulating life to suit His own ends, is therefore reasonable.
It appears true that if it were not for evolution, few could successfully deny the existence of God. Even so, putting evolution aside, when all facets and considerations of life are weighed, it remains more logical to support the universally held view that the origin of this universe, life, and mankind, is attributable to the creative power of a singular God. When the contradictions of life are reasonably explained and understood in terms of God's meaning and purpose, it becomes immeasurably more reasonable to reconcile life with a creator.
God however is frequently dismissed, not because any alternative theory especially stands out as more plausible, but for two fundamental reasons.
One is that as individuals, we each fail to connect to God in any meaningful way. Almost inevitably at some point in life we find ourselves, or those dear to us, in difficult personal circumstances. We may then call upon God to help, but fail to perceive any recognizable answer. This lack of a personal validation of God from God, to us as an individual, certainly provides fuel for doubt of His existence.
The other primary basis for rejecting God as the creator and origin of life, is the absolute disaster so much of this world experiences. Frequent catastrophes and inexplicable calamities in life tend to patently contradict the hand of a powerful creative designer. We conclude that surely if there was an all-powerful wise and caring God, the wretched events of this world could not possibly have occurred or continue to occur. One would naturally expect a powerful creative Being who designed and fashioned this world and all life in it, to have better regard to life's course of events and take better care of it. The reality of tragedies ranging from cataclysmic events to unfortunate accidents across every sphere of life, gives reasonable doubt to at least the personal attention of a creative Being, and even belies the very existence of a creator in the first instance. It transpires then that because so many aspects of life can become immensely abhorrent in so many places, if there truly is a God, one could be excused for expecting that He has a lot to answer for.
In addition, the moral expectation of adherents to most religious faiths is so inherently difficult to attain, we find more comfort and freedom in our conduct when unshackled from the requirements of a strict moral religious code.
These factors form the strength of our confidence in rejecting a concept of God, while evolution significantly offers additional reinforcement of a godless world. It is arguable just how comfortable we are deep down with such a stance, but it is at least reasonable in the circumstances. It is the objective of this book to present a clear construct for the valid, logical, and rational acceptance of a God as the creator of this universe. Therefore, it becomes necessary to thoroughly explain why rejecting an acceptance of God is flawed reasoning, and to adequately explain just who God is and how to make that connection with Him.
I do not expect at this juncture that you will necessarily be persuaded that God exists. The purpose of this chapter was simply to raise sufficient doubt in the absolute belief that God does not exist - and I contend that to have been accomplished. My primary objective has simply been to open up the possibility, however remote, that God may well exist.
8. WHICH GOD
COPYRIGHT: This book and all excerpts are the sole copyright of author Grant Bowater. No reproductions for any purpose may be made without the prior permission of the author obtained in writing.Contemplating the origin of life naturally leads to the conclusion that there may well be a God. This is a perfectly reasonable and logical conclusion. The problem of course is, "Who is God?
Accepting for the sake of argument that there really is a God, the dilemma becomes which God is the true God. This of course is extremely difficult to determine as history patently demonstrates. It has to be the most unresolved issue in life. "Is there a God?" and if so, "Who is God?" are questions that have perplexed man since time immemorial. While God has traditionally and historically been regarded creator of life, the plethora of religions and their inability to agree on exactly who God is, actually endorses the argument for rejecting the notion of God altogether.
Different approaches offer alternatives to resolving this matter of who is God. We could just do nothing. If God really is out there and He is at all interested in us, surely He'll make contact some how. We could study all the various religions of the world and find the one that seems best. We could simply adopt the popular religion of our culture or family history. We could dismiss then all and start from scratch making every endeavour to find God on our own - casting off all the baggage of existing religious concepts. Or we could take a punt on the one religion that seems most reasonable to us and go with that.
Of these, I recommend the later two. While going it alone from scratch is fraught with pitfalls, I personally believe anyone who sincerely seeks for God with diligence and perseverance, will find Him. However, I strongly recommend the latter option as it will provide an effective direct route to truth. That's what this book is all about. It is my task to effectively persuade you that not only is God real, but that you can come to know Him personally too.
Surely though, you might ask, wouldn't a careful and detailed study of all religions resolve the question of God and bring enlightenment on the issue? Intriguingly enough, I do not believe this would be so. If it were true, why have so few people been successful at it? Certainly some have succeeded, but I have already proposed that anyone genuinely and sincerely seeking God will find Him. The trouble with the thorough comparison of religions option is that it can easily lead to confusion, deception, or despair.
Attempting to validate religious views by analyzing differences between them is inherently futile. Just as head to head debates between proponents of evolution and creation usually resolve nothing, so would any debate between proponents of say Islam and Judaism be ineffectual. Because every religious view consists of elements that are rational or reasonable, one needs to delve deeper to ever be satisfied that any particular religion is the right one. Even then, extensive objective investigation is unlikely to be conclusive.
Therefore, the need to consider in detail the full range of alternatives for God is, I suggest, avoidable. We can circumvent this exercise by recognizing that one is not seeking to extract truth and meaning from what is essentially divergent theology. It is not possible to extract meaning from life by drawing from every philosophical and religious concept of God. Better to settle on a rational, logical, and reasoned argument that gives a clear direction and conclusion. If this sufficiently resolves the questions regarding the origin of life and its related purpose and meaning, then surely the primary objective has been accomplished. Unless a more credible philosophy for the concept of God and the meaning of life is evident elsewhere, detailed exploration of alternatives becomes superfluous. Hence, it is simply a useful exercise to make a rudimentary examination of the predominant religions for the sole objective of being aware of them.
I accept that by failing to thoroughly examine all views of God, I leave the reader with insufficient evidence for comparison. As I have just explained, I do not intend to make comparisons as my objective is to thoroughly present just one perspective, leaving the reader the option to research the comparisons if so desired.
Some may argue that this is a cop out. Therefore, perhaps I can justify my approach, by using an allegory. Imagine if you will a large pool in a forest clearing at the base of a waterfall. The waterfall consists of a conglomeration of different streams flowing down a sheer rock face from an inaccessible summit high above. In this allegory, the pool represents life here on earth and the various streams the differing religions. Comparing and debating the different religions is like analyzing the water that flows from each stream. Each stream is apparently similar yet different - different colour, texture, taste, etc., and people are divided in their beliefs, each claiming their particular stream delivers the true meaning and purpose of life. Naturally, arguments develop between the proponents of each respective stream as they seek to help others by exhorting them to partake of the life giving water before it is all mingled in the pool below. Scientific analysis, medicinal properties, remedial qualities, and all manner of benefits are claimed for each stream. Now rather than debate the evidences of the streams as they flow into the pool, an alternative approach is to consider the source, high above and beyond the pool. Although the actual source remains inaccessible, to shift the focus from debating evidences at the bottom to considering a different set of factors relating to the source itself, provides a fresh perspective. By adopting this alternative approach, one can develop a more comprehensive case for identifying the true life-giving stream. Rather than totally disregarding the common arguments relating to the streams as they flow into the pool, the shift in focus merely opens up wider issues. In essence, that is what this book aims to do - shift the focus away from what has always been debated and examine a different but related set of issues.
Undoubtedly some readers will be annoyed by my failure to properly address comparisons of the different religions, much as they were probably irritated by my failure to thoroughly address the variations of origin theories and evolution. I do trust however, that once a clear appreciation of the purpose and meaning of life has been understood, the need to compare religions becomes of no practical relevance.
While the difficulty in determining which God is the true God and substantiating His existence gives good reason for dismissing the notion of God altogether, it is fascinating to discover that this very fact itself becomes a fundamental element in understanding the meaning and purpose of life. Only when it is understood why God has chosen to conceal Himself and His purposes, does it becomes obvious why so many religious views have developed and why evolution and alien colonization have evolved as viable alternatives to the origin of life. The many alternatives of God, should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that God does not exist. It should equally lead to the question, "Why has God allowed so many alternatives to develop?"
It is rightly accepted that most adherents of the differing religions and faiths are genuine believers, and that their beliefs are worthy of respect. Freedom of religion is one of the developed world's more valuable rights and to deny this right should never be allowed. It is not my intention to either belittle or ridicule any religion or faith, nor question the sincerity of their followers. If the matter of God were so plainly understandable there wouldn't be such diversity, so the diversity is a natural outcome of man's quest to resolve who God is.
There are various ways one can approach the matter of differing religious views. One is to acknowledge that if there is a God, then because He is so obviously difficult to discover, then all religious views are equally valid and must ultimately be acceptable to God Himself. Alternatively it is feasible that none of the religions have got it right and that God is just too mysterious to know or understand or perhaps doesn't even exist. Yet a third possibility is to accept that just one particular faith is right and the others are wrong.
Interestingly enough the religious person tends to believe that his particular faith is the true one and all others are wrong. Non-religious people either dismiss the lot or give credence to all faiths having equal merit. In appreciating just how many followers of each particular religion there are, a logical conclusion would be to disregard the lot. Alternatively, one might concede that if there really is a God, then it surely doesn't matter what religion you believe.
Once the purposes of God are clearly understood, the diversity of faiths is understandable. It will also become apparent how true believers can still be subject to error. Until then, this rudimentary overview of the predominant world religions is all that is necessary to help put in context the rationale for one logical conclusion.
Allow me to begin from the supposition that life originated from God and that there must therefore be some intrinsic purpose and meaning in it all. While this is yet to be proven, from this premiss we can take a common approach in analyzing the diversity of faiths. This helps to evaluate whether all faiths are of equal merit, or if one has greater substance to it than the others.
If God accepts all religious views of equal validity, then any religious view must obviously be of equivalent merit. If this were the case then it wouldn't really matter what you believed and you could justifiably follow any religious concept you wanted to. Such views of course are only sustainable if God is both distant and impersonal. Then He could hardly require of man any greater moral demand than the most liberal faith permits.
Most religions claim a God who demands that man conform to a particular moral code. It is clear that such moral codes vary from religion to religion. So can the God of these differing religions be one and the same God if the religious adherents believe their God demands different moral behaviour? Consequently, to believe that all religions are acceptable to God must be illogical, since that very rationale is unacceptable to those who hold a religious view.
It is reasonable for society to consider all religious views valid and to allow freedom of religious expression. It is unreasonable though, to subscribe to the notion that simply because all faiths are acceptable to man, that they are all acceptable to God. If God does indeed accept believers of all faiths, then there can be no absolute right or wrong, no moral code, and no right for God to judge anyone. This pantheistic concept may appeal to the politically correct mindset of society. But it is illogical in respect of a creator who established a world where right and wrong is evident, and where any semblance of order, meaning, and purpose is construed. Deducing that God is not prepared to accept all religious views Himself, it is evident some must be in error.
If we agree that not all faiths are likely to be acceptable to God, is it possible that some may be collectively acceptable? This would appear reasonable in the first instance. Surely if the moral code of differing faiths contained basically the same requirements and there were common tenets of faith among them, it is only reasonable to assume that such a group of religious views would be acceptable to God - particularly given the apparent difficulty one encounters in trying to find God in the first place. How could adherents of sincere and noble religious views, ever be rejected by God under such circumstances?
Until we clearly understand the true character and nature of God, and appreciate all that He has accomplished for the reconciliation of man, we cannot fully comprehend the inadequacy of this reasoning. It does however reason that if there truly is a God who made all things and created life, then it is follows that He must have made some provision for man to know His purposes and that man has the opportunity to find this out.
The first matter to consider is whether or not the creative power of life is a singular being, a multiplicity of deities, or simply a pervasive force. Is it God, gods, or a creative energy?
Some modern "new-age" thinking and philosophy regards God to be a creative energy that needs to be realized and released in each of us. Essentially, this new-age belief is that "we" are God. The belief that God is some nebulous, impersonal force is not new, and evidently is derived from Eastern philosophy. New age thinking has simply embraced the Eastern concept of God and personalized it with a more humanistic focus.
New-age self-actualisation or self-realisation, selfhood, self-communion, and all manner of self-focused activity is supposed to discover our "true self" and reveal the God in us - that we are indeed God. This denial of any specific independent divine being beyond oneself, limits this kind of faith to the capacity of human reason. It offers little in terms of addressing human need or providing a plausible basis for the meaning of life. Much of the argument against the Eastern religious view is equally applicable to this kind of new-age religion.
In regard to multiple or pagan gods, our more recent understanding of the forces of nature through credible scientific observation and measurement has all but eliminated the need to associate the earth's forces of nature with such deities. History however records almost every civilization holding some kind of religious view, many of which believed in multiple or pagan gods. Belief in such gods is also commonly associated with legends of strange and supernatural events. Magic, sacrificial practices, rites, and inexplicable occurrences frequently relate to pagan worship of various gods. It is unreasonable to presume that these ancient and even primitive cultures simply invented gods to satisfy a lack of understanding of the forces of nature. Thorough examination of unexplained phenomenon associated with various pagan rites would seldom transpire as pure myth or invention. It is almost certain that the concept of multiple gods has developed from the interaction of man with powerful spirit beings in the unseen world. The existence of an unseen spirit world, when more clearly understood, provides answers to a whole range of "supernatural" events. It is most probable therefore, that supernatural events linked to the spirit world, formed the basis for an understandable belief in multiple gods. The nature and power of the spirit world will also be explained further in subsequent chapters.
While adherents to Eastern religions often acknowledge and even worship a range of deities, usually represented by some kind of idol or religious icon, this is not the same expression of multiple gods as the more traditional Greek or Roman beliefs. These spiritual deities of Eastern religions are seldom perceived as the all-encompassing creator but are merely lesser gods with specific power to affect particular outcomes in specific areas of life. In reality they are nothing more than demon spirits but their influence can be significant.
The concept of multiple gods is difficult to grasp without tending to regard one above the others. In ancient times Zeus held top spot, so in any multi-god religion it is hard to believe these deities exist with power to do things on earth if they don't have a superior deity coordinating it all. Common reason would lead one to the conclusion that there must, by necessity, be a controlling factor - leadership is an imminently observable fact of life among intelligent beings so it would be logical to expect it among deities.
While some elements of Eastern religions believe in multiple deities, God is rarely perceived as a personal individual being. The typical Eastern religious view regards God as an impersonal nebulous power that man ultimately will unite with following a cyclical process of reincarnation.
Buddhism recognizes the world as impermanent and depraved. Man's responsibility is to deny worldly pursuits and seek Nirvana (true permanent absolute reality), which is ultimately the extinction of self. Life has its codes to follow and deeds determine karma. Karma is the sum of a person's actions determined by the law of cause and effect, and karma determines future births and future events. Buddhism claims it is not a system of faith and worship but rather it is merely a "Path to Supreme Enlightenment".
Hinduism believes in one all-pervasive supreme being and creator. Hindus believe that divine beings exist in unseen worlds and that temple worship, rituals, sacraments, and devotions create communion with these gods. Hindus also believe in karma and the cycle of reincarnation until one attains the ultimate goal - that is for atman (the real self) to fuse with Brahman (the absolute or ultimate reality).
Taoism believes Tao is the first-cause of the universe - a force that flows through all life. The Tao surrounds everyone and therefore everyone must listen to find enlightenment. Each believer's goal is to become one with the Tao. Taoists believe that spirits pervade nature and the gods in heaven act like men. The concept of a personified deity is foreign to them, as is the concept of the creation of the universe.
The distinct absence of a personal God has led to many derivatives among the Eastern religions. Since God is not personally knowable, the path to enlightenment is directed by the writings of historically "wise men". The Pali Canon comprise the collective writings of Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha. Rishis or holy men who were the mythical founders of Hinduism assembled their holy writings called the Vedas and Agamas. Lao-Tse, a contemporary of Confucius, is credited for the writings of Taoism. These men and various others including gurus, are the enlightened ones that help guide their followers to effective devotion and greater understanding. All this leaves the devotees with no absolute authority from a personal God and no certainty of eternal life.
I suspect some people who have not found a satisfactory personal experience in monotheistic religions are prone to adopting an Eastern religious view, but such adherence is more likely to be a result of a perceived failure in Western religion than in the compelling nature of the Eastern religious view.Besides, the concept that God is not a personal God but some nebulous force pervading the universe is irrational in the context of life as we observe it. The order, design, harmony, and complexity of life inherently convey a purposeful and personal God. Admittedly, the apparent chaos that surfaces from time to time upon the earth does give some validation to a nebulous impersonal God, but this of itself is insufficient justification for adopting such a view. The concept of an impersonal God is one small step removed from the concept of evolution where there is no God. It may be easier, but I suggest it requires a greater level of faith to believe in these that than it does to believe in a personal God.
For example, I see a credibility problem with reincarnation in explaining who or what decides the criteria for determining who goes up or who goes down the line of future lives. Who or what is the divine arbiter that determines if the required standard at each level has been met? Eastern religions with all their derivatives and nuances are more about rites and practices for a God of no personal qualities rather than relationship with a personal God. Consequently, establishing a clear statement of exactly what Eastern religions believe concerning any number of things, tends to be vague at best.
I find reincarnation itself to be illogical as a rational outcome of life. How can people come back as some alternative life form when there are more beetles and insects in this world at present than anyone could ever count? - multi-squintillions and some! Obviously some life forms must be new entities while others are recycled perhaps hundreds of times. How is it determinable whether a particular life form is a new creation or merely a recycled one? And how can some life forms have been people while others have not? The mind boggles.
Nations where Eastern religion prevails are mostly third world. They have endured generations of poverty, despotism, corruption, and misery, yet their God offers no respite. The extent of widespread impoverishment and destitution among nations primarily following Eastern religion, certainly creates an anomaly concerning any perceived advantage of such faith. Clearly for all their spirituality, it appears to have minimal (or at best limited) benefit on quality of life. I suggest with the onus on karma and no acknowledgement of a personal God, adherents are left with a sense of hopelessness that is manifest in widespread societal acceptance of degradation and futility.
Voodoo continues to have a significant hold in both African and West Indian countries. It is an inherently superstitious religion, relying predominantly on fear and ignorance to ensnare believers. While obviously pagan and lacking any semblance of legitimacy, it can unfortunately be somewhat effectual. Voodoo type religions engage the dark side of the spirit world and that is very real and powerful. The gods and deities that are the focus of their devotion are nothing more than evil spirits that ensnare their devotees into a habitual cycle of fear and superstition, relying upon ignorance to maintain their influence. This certainly has some effect, but brings with it bondage and servitude. Like the Eastern religion's idols and gods of worship/devotion, voodoo depends on demonic powers. These spiritual forces are indeed very real, and can have a significant but negative effect in people's lives.
It is evident then, that Eastern religions acknowledge a God that is universally nebulous and impersonal. Naturally it is not feasible to "know" such a God or have anything like a personal relationship. It stands to reason that we can only "know" or relate personally to a God that is singularly distinct and personal. I believe Eastern religions have developed and thrive because establishing a personal relationship with God is not so straightforward. When it is not easy to "know" God, or what is required of us to be able to "know" Him is disconcerting, it is much easier to settle for a God that is transcendental and impersonal.
The manifestation of spiritual forces in the world compound the difficulty of finding God in a personal capacity and readily contribute evidence to the conjecture that God is represented by multiple deities, or is so far removed above these representative powers on earth that He is virtually unknowable.
Moving on from multiple gods or a transcendental and impersonal God, we now consider the religions where God is acknowledged as a singular entity - the supreme creator and ruler of life. Religions that believe in a God who gets involved personally in the lives of men.
Firstly, it is important to appreciate that the God of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is one and the same God. These religions just understand Him differently. When totaling the number of adherents to these three religions, the concept of a singular God is quite clearly the more popular view in the world today. Bear in mind however that a majority does not necessarily make it right or true.
It is my belief that the God of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims is the true God. The Jewish faith is one of the oldest religions in the world and their historical records demonstrate significant influence of their beliefs over the world through the ages. The Arab nations where Islam was founded are descendents of Abraham, the father of the Jewish faith. Both religions acknowledge the same God as the God of Abraham. Christianity was born out of Judaism and naturally the same God is recognised.
The defining difference for the Jews is Moses, for the Christians it is Jesus Christ, and for the Muslims it is Mohammed. These three religions (including the many offshoots), also rely on the writings of holy men. The Jews have Moses and a number of other prophets, the Muslims rely heavily on Mohammed, while the Christians focus more on Jesus' teachings recorded by the apostles. These holy writings, however, all point toward knowing and obeying one singular God. The Christians specifically emphasize the relational aspect of knowing God through Jesus Christ, but all three have rites and practices that are an integral part of their worship.
Unfortunately history is rife with countless examples of conflict between these three faiths and the deep-seated distrust of each other appears irreconcilable. Transgressions and abuses, perpetrated by each at various times, have all but destined the three proponents to habitual rivalry.
Unfortunately the conflict of religions has done more for discrediting a belief in God than it has for winning converts. Understandably no atheist in his or her right mind would willingly subscribe to a religion that displayed such animosity. The fact that God has been so completely misrepresented by the general conduct of religious movements over the centuries, could however give rise to the hope that perhaps He is just simply misrepresented and His true character can be discovered by means other than following the norms of the masses.
Both the Jews and Muslims worship a God of laws and rituals, however God moved on from that two thousand years ago. But even within the Christian faith, the application of law and ritual often hold an unhealthy predominance.
In deducing just which form of God is the more reasonable to believe, it becomes relevant to apply some simple tests. These tests consist of rational logic, historical evidence, and empirical evidence. It becomes an enormous task to take each of these independently and apply them rigorously to each particular belief or faith. Such an approach becomes preclusive in light of where I am going but it is a valid approach nevertheless.
Every test of credibility applied to any particular religious view must be equally applied to all should any valid conclusions be drawn. The challenge of course is to be completely impartial but that is virtually unattainable. We are all strongly influenced by culture, social norms, traditions, teaching, and personal experience. All these events have impact on how we perceive and interpret information so that a truly objective analysis is not practically achievable. Notwithstanding all this, one will inevitably believe that which is most compelling - but that may not necessarily be based on clear rationale and logic.
Historical, cultural, and social norms are powerful influences in what shapes our philosophy and in what we believe. It is incredibly hard to set these aside and look clearly and impartially at any evidence. My objective is to generate enough interest in spirituality to motivate or goad you into embarking on a sincere search for truth and God, by initially starting with Christianity. There are many Christian converts who have spent years exploring a range of religious views and experiences only to eventually find truth and peace in Christianity.
I have absolute confidence in the individual and independent process of seeking for truth and God. If God really does exist but cannot be found, then the case for His existence folds. However to reach that point where such a sincere search is likely to be considered one must deal, albeit superficially, with other religious views.
One measure of ascertaining the credibility of any particular faith is to examine its positive outcomes and its contribution to society as a whole. The failure of so many religions to demonstrate prosperity and well-being in life, over a sustained period of time, is a formidable argument against them having a reliable connection with God. It seems logical that if God were on the side of any particular faith, then this would be evidenced in the outcomes experienced by those who adhered to that particular faith. Prosperity, health, long life, and favour should be manifest among any people who have found and developed a relationship with God. In addition, if God were on the side of any particular faith, should not adherents of that particular faith also be making a positive contribution to the well-being of the society in which it functions?
Analysis of this phenomenon is not easy. Numerous societies and cultures over the history of the world have prospered when it has been obvious they worship a variety of gods, while certain Christian groups have endured immense persecution and suffering.
We see from the biblical record that when the nation of Israel, in the centuries before Christ, followed God's word faithfully, He prospered them. Conversely, when they rebelled He sent distress, hardship, and destruction upon them. Even earlier in the written record, we read of Jacob's son Joseph, a Hebrew, rising to prominence in the pagan Egyptian society of the day, to become second in command after Pharaoh. Joseph's faithfulness to God resulted in the whole nation of Egypt prospering more than any other. Yet the biblical evidence is such that the prosperity was for Joseph's sake, that he might also be able to provide for his father and brothers (who later became the patriarch fathers of the twelve tribes of the nation Israel).
Christianity's influence through faithful adherents in a developing Western society, seem to have brought God's widespread blessing and prosperity to what is now the developed world, even though the faithful have been few. The argument is difficult to sustain in the wider context but it is reliable in applications that are more personal. If faithfulness to the Christian God yields no better life than that experienced by other religions, then one should rightly question its credibility. However, if thorough investigation of a variety of instances demonstrates a greater overall prosperity for faithful Christians, then the argument is convincing. The evidence is there, but one has to research effectively to see it.
Few peoples have endured for the length of time that the Jews have. Particularly remarkable is that even without a common homeland for nearly nineteen hundred years, they have continually thrived, undeterred by appreciable suffering and alienation from time to time. They are however, a people who resolutely believe they are still God's chosen people, and that He is going to ensure their survival until the day He restores them to prominence. Considering that much is written in the scripture about the Jews and how God has dealt with them and will deal with them, it is not surprising that their history is so unique.
Islam is a religion of strict conformity to law and devotion. The basic sound moral code of Islam, as seen on the surface, gives it credibility. But the extremism too many fundamentalists justify from their book the Koran, leading to terrorism, certainly must question their viability for being truly representative of God. Extremism aside, the great majority of traditional Muslims represent a conservative and responsible approach that certainly gives credibility to their religion and devotion.
Christianity is more commonly understood and accepted among the developed world yet due to inconsistencies of practice over time, has more recently been on the decline in the developed world. Interestingly enough while Christianity has declined in the West, it has grown exponentially in third world countries. In terms of growth by proselytism applied to the various religions of the world, it could be argued that Christianity rates the more plausible. However it must be conceded that this alone hardly rates as sound judgement for determining ascendancy of one faith above another. If it were, Beatle-mania would have elevated the "Fab Four" to religious status in the sixties and seventies.
It is evident that these three faiths which share a common God all present credibility but lack comprehensive evidence that would set one apart from the other. Plainly there is a need to delve deeper than the superficial or traditional. While all faiths would argue that any sincere and diligent seeker would find God through their specific doctrines, it is important to appreciate that this inevitably becomes the only infallible way of knowing for sure.
As all faiths tend to present equally valid argument for searching out God among them, it is pertinent to consider the nature and claims of their founders.
The Jews' Moses, Islam's Mohammed, the Buddhist's Buddha, and the Christian's Jesus were all undisputedly, real life historical people. Of all these, only Jesus Christ claimed that He was actually the Son of God - God Himself no less, and that He would rise from the dead.
Jesus therefore becomes the more obvious founder to explore first. His outrageous claim of divinity is unparalleled among religious leaders and considering the extent of His following over the past two thousand years, is deserving of initial scrutiny. Inevitably, Jesus must prove to be either a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.
If He were a lunatic (mad), he certainly had an amazing number of good things to say, worked an amazing number of miracles, and fooled an amazing number of people. Even today many unbelievers can't dismiss His teachings as the ravings of some madman. Had Christianity been a strange sect led by some fruitloop, like some of those history has seen at times, it is totally implausible that so many people would have followed Jesus, even to death, over so many years.
If He were a liar, He would have been found out by now. It is an historical fact that His followers, all of whom were dispirited and despondent after His crucifixion and death, were miraculously revitalized some days afterward, going on to give up their lives for the cause of Christ. The only logical explanation for so many people to be so fervent about Jesus was that he really did rise from the dead and empower His followers with the same message that He Himself had brought. A liar? - most unlikely!
The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn upon careful study of the evidence is that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be.
Like the evolution thing, there are a large number of very sound books providing solid, watertight evidence for the case that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be and that the bible is an authenticated, reliable book.
Now it may be too much to expect you to buy in on that just yet. I've only just begun the story. But don't dismiss it out of hand. It is perfectly reasonable to accept that perhaps this Jesus Christ person was who He claimed to be and that Christianity has some merit to it.
Remember, Christianity is the only religion that emphasizes the responsibility of its adherents is to love one another - even their enemies. Christianity is the only religion that habitually pursues good works and self-sacrifice for the service of others through social concern and social justice initiatives. Despite the fact that large numbers of so-called Christians, over the centuries, have not been good role models, that doesn't take away from the genuineness of the faith - there have always been the Mother Teresa's of Christianity to provide a counter balance.
Finally, Christianity warrants a closer look because everyone who sincerely gets into it really does have an undeniably valid personal encounter with God through Jesus Christ. While this fact may be totally subjective, and we can never test or prove these people's experiences, the vast number of radically changed lives, must contribute a significant weight of credibility to the cause of Christianity.
You just don't get anything like the same dramatic testimonies from converts or followers of other religious beliefs. When it comes to changed lives for the better, Christianity exceeds all others.
It is unlikely you'll be convinced at this point. It had never been my intention to persuade anyone at this particular juncture that God is real and that the Christian faith provides the answers one is looking for in terms of meaning and purpose in life. It is not necessary for you to be convinced yet to make sense of the rest. It is because you probably aren't convinced, that the purpose of this book is established.
There is a good chance that right up to this point I have conveyed nothing you haven't already heard before. Just about everything, if not all of it, has been bandied around freely for years. In fact I would be surprised if you hadn't heard most of it before.
The inadequacy of all that is commonly understood about Christianity to sufficiently address the meaning of life, and answer credibly the hard questions, is the primary reason for this book. While it is unlikely that every question will be answered, any such philosophy expounding the meaning of life must by necessity address the key questions effectively, and it must be founded on a logical and rational foundation if it is to be both reliable and credible.