The parable of the allotment. Part 2

The parable of the allotment

Part 2

Now, this parable of the allotment is clearly really about God, and the gifts he gives. However, before anyone thinks, “Oh, so it’s not true then; it’s just a story about a made-up figure”, I need to emphasise that this parable is completely true.

Well, maybe there’s one error, or, rather, one omission. In the story, the neighbour says, “It’s just round the corner; you can get there in two minutes”. However, some people might complain, “I’ve been searching for God for years and never found him! In fact, some so-called spiritual experts say it takes a lifetime of struggle before you really find God”. This disappointing, frustrating struggle is a genuine experience that many people suffer. However, within this parable, it is true to say that the allotment is just round the corner, near to hand whenever you need it. But perhaps we need to add one extra point.

So, now the neighbour needs to clarify.

“So, why don’t you try it? The allotment’s just round the corner from you; you can literally get there in two minutes. Oh, one thing: the allotment’s down a little path, and it’s easy to miss the gate. I walked that way for years and never knew it was there – but once you know it’s there, it’s easy to spot it. No, the gate’s never locked; sometimes it gets a bit stiff if no-one’s been for a while, but just fiddle with the latch and give it a shove and you’ll get in fine”.

Framework of understanding. Part 2

Framework of understanding

Part 2: What does this mean for faith?

The universe came into being without God. Although the design argument for God’s existence has been very seriously undermined by evolution, the cosmological argument for his existence is still strong: how can something come from nothing? However – perhaps counter-intuitively – scientists seem very confident that the universe came into being entirely through the natural laws of science; it did not need a spiritual entity outside of the universe to bring it into being.

Likewise, we were not created by God, and there is no design or purpose behind our existence; we simply came into being through the blind chance of evolution.

Therefore, God is not the foundation of our existence. We do not need him at all. There is no need to posit the existence of God in order to explain our existence.

However, the experience of God is something that people have. It is a real something, and it needs an explanation. If God is not the foundation of our existence, nevertheless he is encountered within our existence. The experience of God is something that we discover within the reality caused by the Big Bang and evolution.

It is possible that God may still exist exactly as believers have always said. Scientists correctly show that God is not needed for us to exist, but it’s possible that a spiritual reality exists in addition to material reality. However, science can say nothing about this, as it is outside the scope of science to investigate. However, in our arguing from the atheist’s side of the debate, we have to admit that there is no reason for science to accept that there is a spiritual reality – there is simply no evidence, and belief in God is just speculation – and we are trying to give faith a completely sound foundation within ultimate reality of what can be known – which is the Big Bang and evolution.

The parable of the allotment. Part 1

The parable of the allotment

(Coming in 4 parts)

Part 1

Imagine that a neighbour gives you a message one day.

“Did you know that there’s an allotment in our area, where you can go and get free fruit and veg? Yes, it’s run by this old chap, Arthur, and he just loves growing things. He’s there every day. But he produces so much stuff that he says he can’t possibly use it all himself, so he says he likes to give it away. He’s invited everyone in the neighbourhood to just pop round whenever they like and help themselves. He doesn’t want any payment; he says it just gives him pleasure to know he’s helping people out, and that what he’s produced isn’t going to waste. Just give him a cheery wave as you enter and he’s happy. Oh, and what he grows is fantastic – the juiciest fruit and tastiest vegetables you’ve ever had. Oh no, you’re not taking food from the poor and hungry; he says he’s got lots left over reserved for them. He just doesn’t want good food to go to waste. So, why don’t you try it? The allotment’s just round the corner from you; you can literally get there in two minutes”.

Within the framework of this story, why would anyone not visit the allotment? Why would anyone say, “No, I’m going to get in the car and drive 20 minutes to the supermarket and stock up with whatever I can afford – even though sometimes I’m a bit skint and have to go hungry by the end of the week”.

Framework of understanding. Part 1

Framework of understanding

Part 1: Ultimate reality must be tied to the Big Bang and evolution

So, what is this framework of understanding that might have universal appeal for both believers and non-believers? It would not mean that everyone must become a believer, but it would attach belief to ultimate reality in a way that everyone would accept is valid. Now, of course, this sounds strange because for believers, God is ultimate reality. But this is the very point in dispute, so we must not use it in order to justify faith. Instead, we must show that faith is justified even from the atheist side of the debate.

So, for thousands of years, the natural framework of understanding for just about everyone was expressed in the words: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. This made sense to just about everyone. It was the obvious explanation for reality. It also chimed in exactly with what religious people said was their experience of God’s presence and love. So, in my journey of doubt there have been two spheres of thought: my experience of God and my doubts about what those experiences actually are. And I have had to fight hard to keep the two spheres in harmony. However, for most of human history, those two spheres clearly overlapped because humanity’s framework of understanding was that reality cannot exist without God. Now just get on enjoying living in his presence. However, in the modern age, it is scientific discoveries that have raised doubts about whether faith in God is justified.

So, what is the ultimate framework of understanding that we must now use in order to tie our thoughts firmly to ultimate reality? It depends on the two fundamental ideas underpinning our understanding of the universe and ourselves: the Big Bang and evolution. Whatever we decide in any “pool of thought” – faith or any other ideology – must have firm ties to these fundamental facts.

Framework of understanding idea related to God is the voice in our heads

Framework of understanding idea related to God is the voice in our heads

Some ideas fall into a special category of idea, that I call “toolkit” ideas. That is, they are valuable models that we can use in all sorts of situations; they are overview templates which we use to organise all the events in our lives into a pattern by which we can make sense of reality.

A key idea that strikes me is the importance of our framework of understanding. That is, ideas don’t exist independently in a “free-floating” format; they acquire sense for us precisely because they are held in a particular framework. For most of us, most of the time, I think these frameworks are invisible to us: we just look at the ideas within the frame, and don’t appreciate that those ideas depend on the framework for their validity.

I want to apply this idea to belief in God.

I really want to be a Christian, and I truly love being one. However, I cannot be immune to the attacks on belief in God, and I can only be a Christian if I feel that such a belief is justified. Like many religious believers, I have had periods of severe doubt, and many have given up – not in the sense of giving up as being a failure, but rather that, as persons of integrity, they just don’t see how they can continue in their cherished beliefs if they’re not true. Likewise, many would have loved to have started on a life of faith but felt unable to do so because of the problem of uncertainty.

Perhaps an illustration will help.

Let’s think of life as making a beautiful embroidery. Our focus is on the pattern we are making, and we love the picture that is emerging. However, while the embroidery is being made, the cloth is stretched across a wooden frame. This frame consists of key ideas such as:-

  • God is real
  • We can have a relationship with him
  • These ideas depend on accepting a metaphysical reality beyond the observable material universe

What doubt does is, it cracks the frame; the cloth crumples up and it becomes impossible to work on it anymore.

What I want to do is to create a new framework of understanding within which we can understand what it is we are doing when we believe in God.

My aim is not to replace Christianity with a new “philosophical Christianity”. I want to be a Christian, and I want people to be able to be a Christian without being held back because the doubts that modern life throws up makes them feel that their faith is unjustified. Within the new framework – as it was with the old – our focus and enjoyment is on the picture we are creating. We are free to be Christians. While we live our lives of faith, our experience is exactly the same as it ever was; it is simply that we are protected from the destructive effects of doubt by our new framework of understanding. Within this framework, our faith is as wonderful as ever. It is simply that the foundation that “our cloth of faith” is attached to is completely secure. We don’t actually look at this framework very often, but, if we do, there is no anxiety because our framework is completely unshakeable, and so our faith is untroubled.

My new framework is contained in the idea that God is the voice that we create in our own minds.

This seems to me to be a new basis for a religious and spiritual life that cannot be shaken.

The journey of doubt. Part 4

The journey of doubt

Part 4

As I say, I have now answered these questions to my satisfaction, but I am concerned to answer them to the satisfaction of anyone concerned with truth. There has been the age-old battle between believers and atheists, but they tend to argue at cross-purposes. Believers say, “Take the leap of faith; once you have made the commitment of faith, it all makes sense”. However, atheists say, “I don’t want my faith in God to rely on faith; it must rest on something more substantial than that – on verifiable, scientifically-proven knowledge”. That, of course, cannot be given. For atheists that is a sign that faith is not justified, but believers point out that, even if you could have that certain knowledge of God, faith would no longer exist, because it would be replaced by knowledge.

So, how does faith “touch the boundary” with ultimate reality in a way that satisfies not just believers, but also those who are not currently inclined to believe? My intention (as though it was possible!) is not to prove that God exists – as though, after so many people trying and failing to do this through the ages, I will now be the one to succeed.

What I do want to do is to show that those who are finding deep fulfilment in faith are justified in doing so. That their faith does not simply make sense while they are in the pool of faith, but it also makes sense if they get out of the pool, sit on the edge of it, or go into whatever other pool of ideas and values and commitments that there are. If we can do this, we can give believers confidence that they are free to live their life of faith. They don’t have to be afraid that at the edge of their consciousness are troubling questions that they can’t answer and which threaten to suck their pool dry of meaning. Likewise, if we can find this justification, then all those who are attracted by a life of faith, but feel they can’t make this leap of commitment, can gleefully jump in and also find life in all its fullness.

Just a sip of truth is enough

Just a sip of truth is enough

It’s looking beneath the surface that you’re so good at.

Things that I just can’t see – even though they are in my own heart and mind – you can see.

And you work away to bring them to the surface, till at last I face them, and am dumbfounded.

Struck in the face, perhaps, or uplifted to the sky, but most often simply dropping to my knees, poleaxed by the truth that now stands out so blatantly obvious.

Yet the revelation is always joyful – after a while.

The shoot cracking the hard crust of earth entails a shock of light, but it is the light that is life-giving.

Bitter tears of regret are common: how could I have been so foolish for so long?

But really, the experience is of relief and liberation; it abounds with joy, and new hope.

The truth does always set you free.

And it is God who holds the truth in the hollow of his hand.

So many are intent on their self-serving lies, so many are duped by the distortions heaped upon them, that they will not take what is held out to them.

They do not want the truth; it does not serve their needs.

But the truth is what we most truly need, and it is God who keeps it safe.

Patiently, he watches and waits till a chink in our armour, allows a chink of light to penetrate to the cold interior in which we keep our lies safe, so that no-one can disabuse us of them.

Liberating Lord, why do you bear with us?

Why you love us is beyond me; yet you do, and you reach out your hand to bring your love close.

We sip the truth from your hand and we are refreshed.

The journey of doubt. Part 3

The journey of doubt

Part 3

So, I am alright! I have come through the valley of the shadow of doubt, and I don’t anticipate anything being able to knock my confidence in God. In this respect, I will be OK for the rest of my life. However, as someone very keen on the philosophical search for truth, it is still very important to me to be able to justify my faith. There are two particular concerns.

Firstly, I am aware that – given the extreme difficulty of fighting through to my present position – I may not have embarked on my journey of faith if I had known at the start what I subsequently encountered as obstacles to faith. So, is it only that I began my journey in a previous faith-accepting age that I was willing to persevere, rather than abandon my faith, and all that I had invested in it? As we are no longer in an age of faith, I need to be able to present to young people today convincing reasons to embark on the journey of faith.

Secondly, it is vitally important to be able to attach my faith to solid foundations in reality. This takes us to the difference between theology and philosophy. In theology, believers are entitled to believe whatever they want, but it is up to philosophy to assess the validity of those theological truth claims. So, I am extremely happy within my circle of faith. I move freely and joyfully within my pool of faith, and everything I experience is life-enhancing. But, when I reach the edge of my pool and encounter the boundary between belief and unbelief, am I able to present my faith in such a way that it makes sense to the person outside my pool, just as much as it makes sense to me within the pool of faith? This is where our framework for understanding reality becomes so important. It is not enough for me to be happy in my faith, I must be able to show that my faith is justified in terms of ultimate, absolute reality. It has been on this point that my journey of faith has from time to time led me into deep periods of doubt.

The journey of doubt. Part 2

The journey of doubt

Part 2

Therefore, what I have wanted through my life is a sense of certainty. I truly do love God, but I don’t want to be a fool and believe something that is false. In my own life, a sense of certainty is what I have now attained. I have an understanding of God and an appreciation of my faith which is, I think, now impregnable. It is like this precisely because I accept that the evidence for God’s existence is at best ambivalent, but I choose to believe in God. This gives me a degree of pleasure, to be able to sit on the edge between faith and, not simply doubt, but actually giving up faith, and choose faith. I understand the objections of atheists at least as well as they do, and I am able to agree with nearly all their objections. But at the end of the day, I can still say, “Yes, but…”. And I return to the validity of my religious experience of God, which is supremely precious to me, and – although I believe very happily in God as he is traditionally conceived to be – I can also adopt a very flexible understanding of God, faith and religion, which is, I think, immune to any attack. (Karen Armstrong has expressed this understanding extremely well).

Waterlilies

Waterlilies

When I was at school in the 1970s, one day we had outside speakers who frightened me. I can’t remember much about it, but I think they were talking about the impending crisis of over-population, and they used an illustration of waterlilies.

Apparently, waterlilies can double in size in a single day, and if they completely choke a pond, all other life in it is killed. So, you can visit a pond and see that a quarter of it is covered by waterlilies. “Oh, what beautiful waterlilies”, you say to yourself. Next day, when you visit, you think, “Wow, those waterlilies have really grown – but never mind, half the pond is still clear”. Next day, the pond is choked and everything else is dying.

I felt helpless and frightened that the world was heading for disaster.

And those speakers were right: the world population has indeed more than doubled in my lifetime. However, the apocalyptic disaster they were predicting did not happen. If everything else had stayed the same, and population had simply doubled, the prediction of mass starvation and the breakdown of society would have been correct.

Instead, the “Green Revolution” happened, whereby we learnt how to enormously increase agricultural productivity. Billions of people have been brought out of extreme poverty and are acquiring a decent standard of living. Receiving an education has become standard for most people, including girls. Countless improvements in technology and growth of global trade have created more wealth than was dreamt possible. All round the world, women are deciding that they don’t, in fact, want the long-term world average of 6 children; 2 or 3 will be just fine. All of this has happened in the 50 years since I heard that talk, yet many people do not realise what is happening around them, and are far more pessimistic than the facts justify.

Today, many people, particularly in the younger generation, are afraid. They have imbibed an apocalyptic doomsday mentality from the false prophets of fear, who peddle a relentlessly negative narrative to frighten people into submitting to their political programme. Many are convinced that the planet is already doomed by climate change – or it can only be saved by measures so severe that it would be these measures that would create mass starvation and the breakdown of society.

We have to keep our courage. And our wisdom. We are not denying that the world has perhaps its greatest ever crisis to tackle. But if we do have such a crisis to face, it is imperative that we don’t let our actions be dictated by fear; the people shouting, “Fear and doom”, are precisely the ones to ignore.

Just as when I was a boy, the answer to the world’s problems will be found in our ingenuity and creativity. Yes, our problems are caused by our greed and ruthless exploitation, but we have the ability to solve our problems. Today’s doomsayers claim that everything is getting worse and we’re on the brink of catastrophe. In fact, on just about every measure you can take, the lot of the human race is improving. We are immensely better fed, healthier, freer, safer than we were in 1800, as the Industrial Revolution created the wealth to lift the vast majority of the world’s population from extreme poverty.

Yes, we have to take on the challenge of sustainability, but we will achieve that through further scientific and technological progress, not by dismantling society to return to the misery of poverty which was typical for us before 1800.

When I was a boy, I was wrong to be so frightened. We had the ability to change and develop and to find solutions to our problems. We really will have to all pull together and exert ourselves to the fullest extent of our capacities. But I am not afraid. We can do it.