I don't post much on religious topics, though I probably should. While hanging out on Narrative (now defunct), I got into a little spar with a Buddhist teacher over whether or not one is able to test God. After that short exchange, I decided to write a series of posts on the topic. I didn't get to finish the series before Narrative went belly up, but I intend to re-purpose the articles that were published here and continue the series to completion. I make no promise, but I hope to be able to complete this mission by publishing one article each Sunday until done.
The discussion was prompted by a response to on Narrator's post with these words:
A person can experiment with magnetism, (s)he can test it, (s)he can write descriptions that allow to even predict the result of another experiment, then check that such a prediction is factually what happens if the experiment is indeed carried out…
The same person cannot experiment with God, cannot test God…
The commentator went on to say
Evidence for magnetism is within our grasp, our reach, our control. Evidence for God isn't.
My response was this:
I'll challenge you on the idea that one can't test God. One can indeed test God, and many have. Some have tested Him and walked away in unbelief. Many others have tested Him and walked away believing.
And then we ensued upon a discussion of God's faithfulness.
While my Buddhist friend may have been challenging the existence of God in his response to the post, I'd prefer to discuss testing God's faithfulness rather than His existence. The reasons for this are manifold. First, in testing God's faithfulness, one lays to rest once and for all the question of God's existence. If the test is successful, it should lead to conclusive evidence one way or another--at least in the mind of the tester. A positive proof would indicate God's existence since that which is non-existent cannot be faithful. On the other hand, a negative proof would indicate that God is not faithful; while it's possible that God could exist and simply be unfaithful--according to the dictates of man's ability to reason--I would posit that an unfaithful God would be no god at all and therefore the apparent absurdity of such a contradiction would mean that there is no God. My apologies to committed deists for bursting your bubble.
I am cognizant that the discussion at hand might require many readers to suspend disbelief in agnostic or atheistic commitments. Suspended disbelief is often necessary in the realm of philosophy if one is to pursue an honest exploration and discovery into a difficult question. So I beg for that suspended disbelief as I seek to make my case that one can test God's faithfulness.
While I certainly believe in empirical evidence for science, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that empirical evidence for the existence of God isn't possible. Hence, there is a third reason for not approaching that subject. One who seeks empirical evidence of God may as well jump off a bridge because that's what it will feel like when you reach the exit door of your laboratory and toss your lab coat into the laundry basket. I'll touch on this a little more later, but for now, know that I do not intend to address the question using empirical models of evidence testing. After all, this is metaphysics.
I will also not attempt to publish the entirety of my argument in this post. It could turn into a book-length manuscript! Instead, I will address the following four steps in separate posts.
Originally, I had envisioned the argument going this way:
The reason I made the change is because I gave it more thought and realized a proper study of God does not and should not be relegated only to "His Word," which, in evangelical Christian circles is a reference to The Bible. While I believe The Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God in its original language as it was written by God's instruments of communication, it would be terribly short-sighted and obtuse to claim that is the only way to study God. Therefore, I'll argue that a proper study of God requires studying Him everywhere He can be found.
The other major deviance from my original thought is on the point of obedience. I prefer "alignment with God's purpose" because a proper obedience should not be construed as a legalistic measure of doing all the right things and refraining from the wrong. A proper alignment to God's purpose requires obedience at the micro level, but it equally requires an understanding of His entire purpose at the macro level.
I invite discussion, even criticism, from readers on these points. I do not expect to change any minds, for that certainly is not within my power. My intent here is to simply offer an expression of my own faith through a proper reasoning using the Biblical texts the Christian church has historically interpreted as evidence pertaining to the question, extra-Biblical texts that I find helpful in answering the question, and my own personal experiences.
In the coming weeks, I'll explore these four steps in the testing process--with this caveat: One need not adhere to these steps in any particular order. And if you think it strange that I should give an ordered list and insist that it not be followed to the T, consider that God is not a puppet, nor does He exist in a box. Attempts to make Him some Jack-in-the-Box for man's own good have had disastrous results in history. I will not walk down that road.
Again, I will endeavor to post every Sunday, but I won't make a promise. I am a slow and deliberate thinker, which should not be confused with indecisiveness. I simply prefer to have "all my ducks in a row," if you will, before I issue them marching orders.
Cryptocracy: Crypto news for less than the price of a latte.
