God and me: a like-minded pair?

Part 4: Who is it that exists if we attain union with God?

Clearly, in this case, there are still two minds: the believer’s and God’s and they are in complete agreement. When this “new thought” first occurred to me, I sensed that there may be more to it than this. That God has either taken control of the person, so that their separate individuality had ceased, or that it could suddenly be seen that God has ceased to exist, in that God is nothing more than a state of mind existing within us, so it is God who is shown to have no separate existence. It may be that this conundrum is solved by some sense of union with God – perhaps familiar with the mystics – whereby talk of one or the other party ceasing to exist is mistaken, for what is really happening is that the two persons are merging into a full union. In this case, both continue to exist – and, I think, both still exist as individuals, but they also, perhaps, take on a corporate existence, where the two truly have become one – even though both persons of the union maintain their separate individuality – though, in practice, neither party ever chooses to act contrary to what the other party also desires.

I note that I have started talking about the will as the central aspect of explaining how two might become one, and I did not initially expect this. I was thinking in ontological terms – about the nature of being – as to “what” it is that is existing if the believer’s mind “became one with God”. Have we shown that the ultimately important part of the human person is a mind that must “be lost in God” if it is to attain complete wholeness – and thereby attain eternity, such that, in the end, the individual ceases to exist and all there is is God? Or have we shown that all our thoughts about God as a separate, independent personal agent are mistaken, and, all along, God is the word we use when we attain a state of mind whereby all that we conceive God to be (as that personal agent) has been fully integrated into the person we actually are (as opposed to simply desiring to attain in principle)?

God and me: a like-minded pair?

Part 3: Behold, I have become God – and I mean that very humbly

What have we said? The mind of God is – sorry, can be – the same as our mind. Rather than thinking I have destroyed God, or, at least, terribly demeaned him with this idea, claiming that God is nothing more than something our minds can do, let us instead take in the awesome elevation of what this means for us: we can take on – and become – the mind of God.

This is not some megalomaniac delusion: “Look at me, I’m God really!” Remember, there is absolutely NO endorsement of ordinary humanity as though it has divine status. The idea only has any validity at all IF we can be transformed by giving our minds to God and allowing him to shape us so that we “take on the mind of God”. In practice, of course, this will never be fully achieved, but even aiming for it raises our question about the relationship between our minds and God’s.

If some sort of correlation, no matter how imperfect, between our mind and God’s is possible, what might this mean in practice?

We might begin by thinking in terms of us, as individuals, being in complete agreement with God. Not simply in the usual terms of believers acknowledging – wholeheartedly – that they understand that what God thinks is completely and absolutely right and good (believers have always accepted this), but we would be saying that, in practice, the person has come to completely desire what God desires. There would be no more divided will, whereby the believer wants, in their inmost being, the same as God, but other parts of their will want what is contrary to God’s will. If a believer could attain some sort of integrity, or full inner harmony, so that they experienced no inner conflict – on at least some points – then, to this degree, their mind would be the same as the mind of God. God would not have to tell the person: “Do this, for this is my will”, because the person would say, “I have already decided to do this, for it is my will too”.

God and me: a like-minded pair?

Part 2: I’m sad to say goodbye to the God who is separate to me – but perhaps it’s not so bad really

In this sense, “God and I are one” – which sounds lovely, but does it take us into more troubling territory?

We seem to have made God into a mind, which can be identical with our mind. This seems to give a big shove to the argument that God is not, in fact, out there, but is, indeed, an aspect of our psychology. That sounds too weak to me. It would mean that God is a facility or capability of our mind. We might – as many great thinkers have in the past – term it “God-consciousness”. I don’t know all the existing links that people might make when they hear the term “God-consciousness” and I am not yet able to say whether I agree with them or not. I am simply considering whether the term “God” is better understood to refer to our consciousness of God, not as a “person out there” but as a way of thinking and even, I think, more than that, as a higher realm of thinking – and perhaps the Buddhist concept of enlightenment applies here. We can acquire God consciousness, which is not consciousness of a noun – “God”, but which is a verb relating to the way we think – that is, thinking in the manner of God. This argument clearly (perhaps!) settles the search for the God “out there” – we must give up trying and find God inside. But we must be careful that this terminology of “the God inside” does not fool us into thinking that God is still a “something”, separate to us, when God is really us – though a radically different us! 

[As a tangent to our main flow of argument, we should acknowledge that the idea of God existing as “Mind” has a lot of mileage in it, and could simply be an alternative way of talking of God as “Spirit”, and so it is not necessarily the case that if we “confined” God to the idea of being mind that this must mean that he only exists within our minds. However, our main train of thought is to consider the status of minds if it could turn out that our mind is the same as God’s]

My initial reaction is to be extremely sad at the thought of God NOT being separate to us. I was told he was when I was young; I believed that devotedly; and it all made perfect sense in terms of according with my experience of the God who is out there calling to us. That is definitely how the experience of God strikes me. I would not like to think that I had been mistaken – with the sudden panic that perhaps I have wasted my life on some sort of wild goose chase. However, once we start to consider what it is we’re suggesting with this idea of us really being God, and – crucially – this only being true if the us who is God is a very radically different us, I think we find that there is not really any sting of loss. We may, hopefully, find our spiritual lives enhanced. I think it will also reinforce my view that, in practice, it really doesn’t matter if God is outside us or completely contained inside us. Also, we must always follow where the truth leads us, even if this should take us away from belief in an external God.

(A theological reflection in 7 parts)

God and me: a like-minded pair?

Part 1: What does it mean to say that my mind is one with God?

A new thought occurs to me.

The essential thing for me about God is that he should be real; he should be there. What do I mean by that? What I want most of all is for God to be independent of me, different to me, not me. I have fought hard to maintain a reasonable belief that God is more than an aspect of my mind, that God is not simply a psychological condition, contained within me. I have also developed a strong defence of the value of God as “simply” a psychological condition, and I have also put forward some ideas that I think are very strong and valid that, in practice, it makes no difference whether God is “just” inside my head or whether he is also “out there”. However, I hope that he is other than me.

An important element for me is that I have claimed that I can tell the difference between me having an inner conversation with myself – mulling things over, as it were – and what is happening when I am having a conversation with God. Some of my recent thoughts make me a little less certain of this now, but I still veer towards there being a difference. My new thought impinges on this.

Is my mind my own?

We must say, “Well, of course it is!”. If there is one thing that is yours, it is your mind. However, I want to say, “Lord, I give you my mind”. What am I after here? I am conscious that I want to be fully united with God, “walking fully in his way”, and I am conscious that there is so much of my life that is unworthy of God. If we are to be truly at one with God, then this must fully embrace everything that is going on in our minds. Hence my desire to “give my mind to God”.

Yet my mind must be my own. ALL my thoughts take place in my mind – there is nowhere else for them to happen. There is nothing more central to me being me than possession of the mind that is mine. So, if God were to somehow “take over my mind” that would then be God living in me. This fits in with a long-standing desire for believers, that God might indeed “live in me and I in him”. But what does this mean within our minds themselves? If my mind was completely God’s, is it still my mind, and am I even still alive? The only solution, I think, would be to conclude that my mind has become the same as God’s mind.

What would have to be true for the God of classical theism to be real?

7) Summing up

What constitutes the sum total of reality? If there is just the physical realm, then God cannot exist (except as a psychological state in the human mind). However, if there is also the metaphysical realm, then God becomes a possibility. Of course, if we use the word “metaphysical” to refer to principles, values, ideas, intangible qualities, such as love or patriotism, then the metaphysical definitely exists, but we are not making an opening for God other than as an idea. So, when we talk about metaphysics, we are asking if, as well as “physical stuff” existing, it is also possible for “spiritual stuff” to exist – things like God, souls, heaven. Clearly, if you do not accept the existence of the metaphysical in this sense, then you are ruling out the existence of the God of classical theism, as you are not allowing anything supernatural to exist. This would be a fair judgement – certainly we are only sure of the existence of the natural, and have no way to establish for certain the existence of anything beyond it.

So, we might want to say that it argues against theism that in order for God to have any chance of existing, we have to put forward the existence of a totally new category of being – the metaphysical. This seems so extraordinary, that we can see why modern atheists argue: “Yes, once upon a time, it made sense to believe in God, but now we know better, we really ought to drop these strange and false ideas”.

Yet why did humanity ever put forward such absurd ideas – if absurd they are? We acknowledge the power of belief in God as an explanatory mechanism to justify what seemed unfathomable without positing the existence of God (or gods) – namely: “Why are we here?”. But was this all there was to it? Isn’t it rather that human beings feel the call of something beyond themselves, and through generations of discovery and self-searching came to the conclusion that there is a God, who is “out there” but who is calling us to know him. I must beware of intellectual sleight of hand. The physical realm has the hard evidence of scientific verification, while I slipped in the existence of the metaphysical realm because we (humanity) “feel” the call of something beyond ourselves. Yet I do want to challenge the atheistic claim that religion began as an explanatory device, rather than in response to the experience of God. (I have argued elsewhere that today we can fully accept the scientific explanation of the universe while still responding to the call of God.)

So, for God to exist, in the way he is generally understood to exist, we need to assert the existence of the metaphysical realm in which spiritual beings are a reality.

A final question is why would such a God, if he exists, bother with people like us? God needs to have an immense love for those who don’t deserve it. Why should such a wonderful God pay any attention to creatures such as us? When we take a sober look at humanity, this seems very unlikely – we are not a nice species! However, this would be what makes God, God. He loves us because he has such a quality of love, and it is our ability to recognise this love that makes us accept him as our God.

What would have to be true for the God of classical theism to be real?

6) God really does need his “omni” qualities.

If any sort of God exists, such as we are positing, then it is not unreasonable for him to hold all the omni qualities that we expect of him. In fact, it would be rather odd if God was rather like the ancient Greek Gods – with superhuman powers, but still limited. That could simply be a “law of the universe” that spiritual beings just are like that, but they sound rather like a continuation of the natural world, rather than the supernatural one – that is, we would be positing the existence of a new species of spiritual beings, who have both their good points and bad points. However, the key monotheistic insight seems sound: IF there is a supernatural force then there is likely only to be one of them. IF a spiritual being worthy of the name “God” is possible, then it is likely that he will gather to himself the perfection of all good qualities.

If we take just one example – his quality of omnipotence, it would feel strange to believe in a God who was very, very powerful, but who had to say, now and then, “Sorry, no, I can’t do that”.

This is vital if we are to have hope that good will ultimately prevail. Personally, I don’t think it is necessary that we have to believe in a spiritual force of evil if we want to believe in God. Clearly, this is a very common and attractive belief, and we can see why. It serves as a powerful explanatory vehicle for why there is suffering in the world, and many feel that they experience the presence of evil as a counterpart to their religious experiences of God. I have never had any substantial sense of a presence of evil as a counter-force to God myself, though there is no doubt that evil works in human society in very malign ways. Further thought is required on this, but for now my key point is that it is essential that evil has no chance of ever overcoming God, for God’s goodness is invincible. (I think it more likely that what we experience as a force of evil opposing God is really the absence or corruption of the good, plus there is a peculiar reality to how evil has extraordinary power – just one example: it can take a moment to destroy what someone spent years building).

There are a number of coherence issues that we need to sort out in relation to God: eg how can he be omnipotent and eternal, or everywhere at once? The classic example: “Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?” is very searching. However, the great philosophers such as Aquinas and Boethius have explored these matters expertly and have suggested sufficient answers.

What would have to be true for the God of classical theism to be real?

5) Life after death – is this possible; is it essential?

If God is a spiritual reality apart from the material universe, then it would be entirely possible for there to be life after death. In fact, it would be strange if there was not. If it’s possible for human beings to exist in a spiritual form, then why on earth would a loving God not enable that option to be followed?

It’s important for there to be life after death. It answers a lot of problems, notably evil and suffering. If, in the life of heaven, “every tear is to be wiped from our eyes except for tears of joy”, then I think it’s possible for ALL the heartache of the world “to be put right”.

For life after death to exist, it would mean either that there is an integral spiritual reality to our persons already, or that, at death, God imparts a new sort of spiritual life to us. There are many problems to solve. HOW do you exist without a body? However, this is the same problem that we have about God: if he can exist, then we would be able to as well. I think for me to be satisfied with life after death, I would require that my personality, memories and relationships remained intact – otherwise, I see no point in having a life after death if this life doesn’t seem to mean anything. However, I am fully aware that to be “fitted for the life of heaven” I would need to be utterly radically transformed. So, there would need to be a “perfect version” of me that was perfect, but somehow still recognisably me. This is a tall order, but not, I think, intrinsically impossible. Surely many of the problems in this life, and our moral defects, are caused by having physical bodies, and without them, we will live much more happily. There is still the potential problem of evil and suffering raising its ugly head in heaven: if God had to allow it in this life because he has to give us freedom, then what is to stop us misusing our freedom in heaven? However, if we are free of physical bodies, and if we are now living in union with the God of love, perhaps it will be possible for us to live a perfect life.

There remains a problem about God’s intention: if what he ultimately wants is to live in relationship with eternal, spiritual beings who are perfectly loving, why did he not just create us as such in the first place? There are good arguments to justify physical creation. It’s popular with religious people to think that this life is somehow an essential test, or essential training and spiritual formation to get us ready for the life of heaven. This raises several problems, but is not an unreasonable position to hold. Do we really think our feeble efforts justify – even with God’s transforming help – that we should now enjoy a life of eternal bliss? If God allows everyone (or nearly everyone) into heaven, then what’s the point of this life? How does God disentangle the myriad “issues” that we get ourselves into in this life so that they do not cause problems in heaven? Nevertheless, if we can let go of the problems caused by our physical creatureliness, then perhaps a spiritual life of bliss does come within reach.

It’s also a possibility that it is just “a spiritual law of the universe” that even God – without impinging on his omnipotence – has to work through a physical stage before reaching the goal of a fully spiritual life. It certainly enhances the importance of this life, and living it correctly – which is what religions have always said. Perhaps a physical stage of existence is essential if we are to truly have freedom, and perhaps God’s greatest desire is to share life with other beings who are free.

I don’t think the problem of hell is a particularly difficult philosophical problem (!). There are certainly problems IF God sentenced people to eternal suffering for the “trivial” misdemeanours of humanity or for harm caused in response to pressure they faced, then that seems very unjust. However, a God who simply allowed some people to cease existence if they had not “qualified” for eternal life, while immensely rewarding anyone he could possibly justify giving it to (in his great love) then that seems perfectly moral. And if God can transform even wicked people into their “perfect version” of themselves, then perhaps everyone qualifies for heaven.

We have considered already that life after death is not essential for believing in God, but it is a central plank of traditional belief. If our faith is good for this life only, then we wonder how the God of love can merrily sail on without us – he cherished us while we were alive, but now that we’re dead, although he continues to cherish our memory, we are only memories, while he alone continues to live forever.

People have often said to me, “Oh it must be really boring, living forever in heaven”, but I think this is a failure of imagination. Modern philosophers have put forward strong arguments as to how death is essential for “real” or truly valuable life as, if we lived forever, or even for, say, 10,000 years, life would become meaningless and dull because we would have the opportunity to live multiple lives, eventually becoming utterly bored with its repetitiveness, whereas it is the temporary nature of life that gives it its value. However, if we take the concept of eternal life seriously – a life that is lived overtly in the presence of God – then why should our faculties be limited as they are now? If the value of this life depends on its finality, then God – who is eternal – must be the most bored being ever! However, in heaven, our delight in life and in each other can expand infinitely, to match God’s own.