‘Does God Watch Paint Dry?’

George Rebane

[I fear that this posting will be of little interest to most RR readers.  It is memorialized here as part of my personal record of thought that I am willing to share with those few whose interest might be piqued by such subjects.]

Religions in general and Christianity in particular are suffering an assault of reason that has reached a zenith through the ascendancy and promulgation of secular humanism (q.v.) that is now touted as the all-explaining worldview held by the educated in every land.  Christianity has been on the wane in developed countries – in Europe it is mostly extinct as a belief system – enjoying gains only among the pre-educated in less developed nations.  Staying its current course, Christianity may expect a similar fate in those countries when they too become developed.

In my extended study of this phenomenon, the fundamental reason for the retreat of Christianity is that its adherents and protagonists continue to teach the faith through promotion of tenets that are easily rejected in this age of accessible mega-information.  What is taught from the pulpit on Sunday does not match the encountered reality during the rest of the week.  And when the supplicants and/or prospects present these dichotomies to Christianity’s purveyors, their counter to reason is ‘You must believe more strongly in the teachings, and then your questions and questioning will disappear.’

Most people answer that they don’t want to become a person in whom such patently reasonable inquiries are no longer possible.  They see it as undergoing a form of intellectual lobotomy, which, at a minimum, will destroy the salutary parts of the image they have of themselves.  And they turn away, proclaiming to other potential seekers the details of their frustrated attempts to understand.

As some previous posts have revealed, I am among those Christians who hold that Christianity is a most plausible and simple system (see Occam) of belief, one that lays the intellectual foundation for our cosmology and provides the most satisfying answers to the deepest teleological questions (the whys) about our existence and fate.  One can even argue that there exist perspectives from which Christianity is falsifiable.  However, such arguments cannot be made from what we may label as the commonly taught ‘everyday Christianity’.

To all this, I believe, there is a powerful yet little known alternative interpretation that can lay to rest the standard litany of doubts about the scriptural history and expression of the faith.  One of the most compelling conundrums for the questioning seeker can be summarized by, 'Does God Watch Paint Dry?'. This is the title of a little apology I have composed for those who would still like to discover whether for them Christianity can serve as an illuminated path between intellect and faith.  Perhaps it will be of help.

Comments

[Todd Juvinall]

George, nice try but there really is no logical explanation on the liberal brain. I watched a bit of Watters World on O'Reilly tonight and Watters was asking some bathers on a Long Island beach (young adults mostly) what the Fourth of July was all about. 57% did not know. Look at others commenting on your blog and others here in our little worlds. MichaelA, SteveF, BenE and their cohorts have to be from a planet other than earth based on their illogical comments. I say the best answer is a Spock mind tap or whatever they call it.

[Douglas Keachie]

Does Todd read one post and then comment on another? I rest my case.

After reading your piece, I feel like I am in God's toy chest, a train driven by stochastic variables, around a track that takes shape and surroundings as I travel forwards.

[George Rebane]

ToddJ 708pm - I think DougK is right, your comment sounds like it should be on 'The Liberal Mind ...'. If you cut and paste it there, I could remove it from here or add a note to it.

DougK 733pm - I think your "God's toy chest" is an excellent analogy. We are players in 'the game of God', and how well we play the game is up to us.

[Douglas Keachie]

I'm going to be disappointed if none of the other readers take a stab at this. George and Doug make nice, refreshing change of pace.

[Gregory]

"provides the most satisfying answers to the deepest teleological questions (the whys) about our existence and fate"

That may be true, but many are more interesting in providing the most likely correct answers to the deepest questions.

George, regarding your paint drying Gedankenexperiment I think it is a fine datapoint for the thesis that every believer creates God in their own image.

[George Rebane]

Gregory 815am - Over the years that people have been reading RR, I hope that I have not impressed upon them that I haven't bee seeking the "most likely correct answers to the deepest questions." Else, why come here?

But to your point - you imply that you have even deeper questions to which you can provide more likely answers. Please share.

[Douglas Keachie]

Here is both a jobs program and a believers paradise.

"According to the non-profit National UFO Reporting Center there are roughly 5,000 UFO sightings reported each year. Gonzalez has people throughout the city of Fresno who serve as sky watchers. These people sit outside for hours watching the sky for anything out of the ordinary.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/10/hunting-for-ufos-california/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fscitech+%28Internal+-+SciTech+-+Mixed%29#ixzz20F0dEIMf
"

[Gregory]

"you imply that you have even deeper questions to which you can provide more likely answers."

I'm at a loss to understand what you misinterpreted to get that statement unless it was my typo: "but many are more interesting" should have read "but many are more interested".

[George Rebane]

Gregory 1021am - I tried to respond to your corrected 815am which now (I think) reads - "That may be true, but many are more interested in providing the most likely correct answers to the deepest questions."

OK, let me respond to that. My little dissertation is not intended to address ALL questions concerning the belief in a cosmology from the Christian teaching(s) or, for that matter, any other teachings. Its only purpose was to show that Christianity has gotten itself into a debilitating conundrum that is readily cleared up in the context of what has come to be known as the "open theology" interpretation of that faith.

Along the way I did brush on the notion of 'game of God', which does indeed address an arguably deep (deepest?) question whose answer is sought by both religionists and physicists. Princeton's John Wheeler framed it succinctly, 'Why Existence?'

[Douglas Keachie]

Or better yet, "how is existence even possible?" ~Keachie~

It does seem very improbable, but, nonetheless, here we are.

[George Rebane]

DougK 430pm - not at all "better yet". The 'how' question has been briskly pursued for centuries, and is the ongoing realm of established science (e.g. the presumed discovery of the Higgs boson). However, the teleological 'why existence?' when answered, promises to provide answers to all the rest of our enquiries, the definitive Theory of Everything. That is why John Wheeler took it as his last challenge, and now other physicists are beginning to join that parade. Because you see, 'why' implies the co-existence of at least a sentient agent. And given the grandeur of our universe, it strongly suggests an agent sapient beyond our (current) ken.