Catholica Commentary by Fr Peter Dresser: God is Big .... Real BIG! (Chapter 3: Who or What is God? Part 1)

"God is Big ..... Real BIG!" by Fr Peter Dresser (Chapter Three - Part 1)

In today's extract from his book, Peter Dresser addresses the BIG question: Who or What is God? There are no easy answers of course, the great minds have been exploring the question since Eve was a little girl. Peter presents to us a few of the different approaches that various thinkers have applied to the subject. This is the first half of Chapter Three from his book.

Chapter Three (Part 1): Who or What is God?

The answer to this question from the Penny Catechism all those years ago went something after the fashion that God is the supreme creator and ruler over all things. It was a fairly sterile definition of a God who is big, real BIG! If this is all we could come up with after centuries of reflecting on God and two thousand years after the death of the man Jesus, then it was pretty unimaginative stuff. And it didn't get much better! Theologians began to ask about the nature of this God and arrived at fairly cold and clinical answers. Some modern thinkers such as Barbara Thiering would suggest that we should not even talk about God's existence because the term "existence" is a human construct and God is not human.[4] Certainly it is important that we do not assert categorically that God has a human existence such as ours. His mode of being may be completely different to our human concept of existence. More about this later. In the meantime God was described in terms of his ontological qualities, qualities that pertained to his very existence. Moreover such a description had to employ human language and thought. Such language told us what God was not infinite, immortal incomprehensible, and so on or even portrayed Him as superhuman using terms such as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, almighty, ineffable, unchangeable.

This is the cover of the 1994 edition. An updated, searchable online version is available on the Vatican website HERE.

There was never a great deal of feeling for and being with this God. He was regarded as out there somewhere and had little impact on our lived experiences except as One that somehow regulated the world, policed our lives and would eventually reward good people with heaven and punish bad people with hell. There was never any great joy expressed when talking about God. Even Christians who had reflected on the life of the man Jesus could not easily connect the person of Jesus as being the expression of God's Spirit — a liberating and freeing and healing and life-giving Spirit. They failed to understand that the compassion and love of Jesus was a reflection of the compassion and love of God. They failed, therefore, to understand the message of Christmas — the message that in Jesus God is with us. Even the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church does little justice to God in the experiential and compassionate sense, failing to give any credence to an evolving world or to the world of science.

"In the creation of the world and of man, God gave the first and universal witness to his almighty love and his wisdom, the first proclamation of the plan of his loving goodness, which finds its goal in the new creation in Christ".[5]

This is really a beautiful statement which speaks of God's love for the world but it is couched in terms that are not readily meaningful to the ordinary person at the coal face of human endeavour.

I suppose that the language of the catechism has to be dogmatic and doctrinal in tone but such language does little justice to our God — and certainly will fail to make Him in any way an exciting and vibrant force in our world and in our lives. It is not God that is dying; it is the prevailing concept of God that is frequently so moribund and lifeless. Whilst traditional religion and its practice is becoming more and more meaningless and irrelevant in our modern world, there remains a strong spiritual dimension in the minds and hearts of the majority of men and women. Before moving on to explore more about this God, it may be worthwhile just to take a quick look at the question regarding his existence. There remain many agnostics or sceptics among us. Generally such people are far more interesting than true believers anyway. True believers particularly right wing fundamentalists can be such giant bores. They may very well believe in God but I sometimes wonder whether God believes in them!

The "existence" of God...

Initially at least, it can only be an assumption that God exists. One cannot prove that God exists — neither scientifically nor in any other way. Arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas (the so-called "five ways"), the Ontological argument of St. Anselm, and countless other arguments are either flawed or at best simply word games. Yet the majority of us, and more than 95% of Americans for example, say they believe in God or a universal spirit.[6] Chet Raymo continues:

"It is the rare person who does not at some point in her life utter a prayer, call upon the assistance of a personal force greater than herself, or hope for a miracle. The most avowed Sceptic, faced with calamity might harbor a hope that the laws of nature will admit exceptions. Scepticism offers little consolation in times of trial. When oblivion yawns before us, a high Credulity Index is the natural response. 'Believe in me, and you shall live forever' offers the guru — an irresistible pitch."[7]

I am grateful to Raymo for his insights — particularly his categorising us either as Skeptics or True Believers which of course is the basis of his book. It might be appropriate to quote a little of what he has to say regarding both these intellectual positions and attitudes:

Skeptics and True Believers by Chet Raymo "Skeptics are children of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. They are always a little lost in the vastness of the cosmos, but they trust the ability of the human mind to make sense of the world. They accept the evolving nature of truth and are willing to live with a measure of uncertainty. Their world is colored in shades of gray. They tend to be socially optimistic, creative, and confident of progress. Since they hold their truths tentatively, Skeptics are tolerant of cultural and religious diversity. They are more interested in refining their own views than in proselytizing others. If they are theists, they wrestle with their God in a continuing struggle of faith. They are often plagued by personal doubts and prone to depression.

True Believers are less confident that humans can sort things out for themselves. They look for help from outside — from God, spirits, or extraterrestrials. Their world is black and white. They seek simple and certain truths, provided by a source that is more reliable than the human mind. True Believers prefer a universe proportioned to the human scale. They are repulsed by diversity, comforted by dogma, and respectful of authority. True Believers go out of their way to offer (sometimes forcibly administer) their truths to others, convinced of the righteousness of their cause. They are likely to be 'born again', redeemed by faith, apocalyptic. Although generally pessimistic about the state of this world, they are confident that something better lies beyond the grave."[8]

Having just read a little bit of Raymo I come to the conclusion that the True Believers are the learned and clever of this world while the Skeptics are the children — those who listen to and face life in its fullness and shades of grey, and in all its complexities, in all its order and in all its chaos. Pooh is the typical Skeptic. Remember too that not all religious people are True Believers just as not all scientists are Skeptics. Those scientists who are invincibly certain of the authority of their science must be counted as True Believers. Yet contemporary science can only thrive among Skeptics. Indeed Einstein once remarked that the most important tool of the scientist is the wastebasket![9] But to return to the existence of this God...

That God exists may well become more than just an assumption after some reflection. His existence is revealed in the minds and hearts of billions of people and has been expressed through art and literature and in faith sharing and of course in the Sacred Texts of so many diverse people. God's existence has also been seen as some kind of Prevailing Presence. I am reminded of the words of Wordsworth from his poem Tintern Abbey:

And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round blue ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man:
A motion and a spirit that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.

Incidentally, isn't that a far more beautiful description of God than the catechism response? It brings to mind a definition of God referred to earlier: "a presence discovered in the very depths of my life, in the capacity to live, in the ability to love, in the courage to be". Maybe theologians should write in poetry. But then, not too many theologians are poets. They are too cold and clinical for that. Besides, poets speak from the heart and have the ability to experience and express the Voice within and have the ability to sense, for want of a better word, the soul of all reality!

This reminds me of a young friend of mine, an atheist, who suggested that in my search for truth I should trim the fat. He had in mind that any pursuit of truth could not afford any assumptions regarding the existence of a God, could not afford anything indeed that could not be empirically provable. My comment at the time was why trim the bloody fat? It is, after all, part of the pig. It just seems to me that truth embraces reality that can be empirically proven and reality that cannot be scientifically proven; things that can be measured and things that cannot. More about this later but it just seems that somebody with a scientific mindset that says that nothing exists that cannot be clinically verifiable finds himself in a quandary if he claims to have an aesthetic and deeply emotive appreciation and experience of music or art or beauty or love. Once the fat is trimmed there is nothing left except colours on a tapestry and vibrating strings of various measurable frequencies. So it seems that truth is reality that occasionally cannot be laboratory tested! And God and our experience of God can be embraced within this truth. I am reminded of the beautiful words of Claude Debussy that music is the sound between the notes and Pascal's comment that the heart has its reasons that reason cannot understand. Having said all this it is nevertheless a fact that we humans have some kind of need to search for meaning, to search for truth — and as far as possible our faith and our beliefs should not do unnecessary violence to our intellects.

NEXT WEEK: Second half of Chapter Three: "Who or What is God?"

“It is nevertheless a fact that we humans have some kind of need to search for meaning, to search for truth — and as far as possible our faith and our beliefs should not do unnecessary violence to our intellects.” ...Peter Dresser

FOOTNOTES:
[4] Barbara Thiering, "The Revolution will be Televised" in Samantha Trenoweth (ed), The Future of God, Millennium Books, U.S.A., 1996, p.176.
[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church, (English Translation), St. Pauls, Homebush, l994, n315.
[6] Chet Raymo, Skeptics and True Believers, Allen and Unwin, Australia, l998, p.58
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid p2-3.
[9] Ibid

IMAGE CREDITS:
Clicking on the images in the body of this article will take you to the original source and further information.

Peter Dresser grew up in Orange NSW. On completing his Leaving Certificate he studied for some years at Springwood and Manly Seminaries. His life journey has led him down diverse paths and he enjoyed the experience of many and varied employments including postman, public servant and factory worker. He has appreciated his exposure to different life styles and religions and his involvement with music and sport, particularly Rugby League. He eventually turned to teaching where he found an easy rapport with and respect for young people. Peter decided to continue with his studies for Priesthood and entered St. Paul’s Seminary. He was ordained in 1990. Peter's love for his Catholic religion dates from his very early years. His involvement with Science is only a recent phenomenon. His fascination with nature has always been predominant. His continuing pastoral concern is that the Good News proclaimed by Jesus be preached and mediated meaningfully in all its richness and fullness to the contemporary world. Peter holds degrees in Arts and Theology and a Diploma in Education. He produced this document in 2004 whilst Parish Priest of Kandos in Central West NSW. He now lives privately in retirement at Kandos where he spent six memorable years.

What are your thoughts on this commentary?
You can contribute to the discussion in our forum.

Share |

[Index of Commentaries by Fr Peter Dresser]

Catholica
34 Martin Place, LINDEN NSW 2778, Australia
editor: Brian Coyne | tel: +612 4753 1226
email: editor@catholica.com.au