The Reality of God - Essay Example

Order 454261 Topic: Dialogue paper God is there….Which God you are talking about? God is not there…Which God you are denying? When one is in peril, one thinks about God. When all goes well, God takes the back seat. Why God can not be the do-gooder always? Why suffering is thrust upon humanity on a selective basis? Some are happy and some are not! Why this partiality? Is God Omniscient and Omnipotent in the real sense of the term or is it the wild imaginings of the intellectuals and philosophers? If he cannot manage the world of this size, why did he not create a small world to enable him to manage it perfectly? Some such thoughts must have engulfed the mind of David Hart(2005) when he writes, “For God is infinite actuality, the source and end of all being, the eternally good, for whom mere arbitrary “choice”—as among possibilities that somehow exceed his “present” actuality—would be a deficiency, a limitation placed upon his infinite power to be God.”(p. 70-71) The immediate provocation for David Hart to do serious thinking about God and divinity was the Indian Ocean Tsunami of December 2004. Facing such a grim tragedy anyone would turn cynical. How God, invariably hailed as the ocean of mercy and benevolence, can co-exist with evil and disaster of such a magnitude? How darkness and light can remain together? Schubert M. Ogden (1992) in his book, ‘The reality of God and other Essays,’ tenders his views on the functioning of divinity from a different perspective. He writes, “If we are to deal with the problem of God responsibly, we must first of all understand the problem in its current form. A promising way to achieve such understanding is simply to ask why the reality of God has now become of central theological concern.”(p.2) The issue is simple and straightforward to answer. Whether an ant can be the arbiter to judge the strength of an elephant? Whether a mole can be the measuring rod for the mammoth mountain range? Whether the human mind can ever comprehend that which is not within its domain? That which is transcendental? According to Ogden (1992) “Rightly understood, the problem of God is not one problem among several others; it is the only problem there is. (p.1)This question is fundamental and is very important. Is human being with his limited mind-level reach has the capacity to give final opinion about the reality of God? If not what is the procedure to reach him? He cannot be the subject of external research. Through inner search there could be a way to reach him. Such a fundamental concept needs to be within the understanding and reach of every human being. The first and the foremost requisite for such inner search is faith. Such a faith must spring forth from the bottom of the heart unconditionally. It must hold on under all circumstances and situations. Ogden further elaborates this point. He writes, “….Christian faith is not utterly alien to man, whatever his historical situation, but rather is his own most proper possibility of existence, which can and should be understandable to him, provided it is so expressed as to take his situation into account.”(p.6)The faith, therefore, must be absolute. It cannot be governed by the effects of good and bad circumstances. Reasoning and arguments will only lead to piecemeal solutions. The main issue is, God is not the subject to be read and described. God and Divinity are for experiencing. That level of experiences is beyond the domain of the mind. Once the mind-barrier is transcended, all differences, as for the discussion on the subject of God dissolve as that is the area of perfect bliss. For all mind-level arguments, there exists a counter-argument and this is the problem with the intellectuals. The contents in a number of existing books on the subject of God, or the number of books that will see the light of the day in future, are not going to provide solution about the nature and existence of God. What then is the process of grappling with God’s style of functioning in a suffering world? Firstly, agree to the limitations of the mind. Secondly, the subject of God does not have any conflicts with science. Spirituality has been hailed as the sciences of sciences. David Hurt is aware of this position and he comments about the Tsunami, “When, though, the power lurking below the marine fault does break forth with full strength, the devastation it wrecks is more terrible than the mind can easily encompass.” (p.4) The author is aware of the limitations of the mind. Calamities of various types happen all over the world quite often. Will the humankind question about the existence of God on all such occasions? The opinions expressed by the authors about the nature and functioning of God are not conflicting but they are different. They have got to be different, for they are mind-level arguments and summations. Each thinker thinks from the level of one’s spiritual progression. For example, what is perceived by an individual standing at the height of 1000 ft. on a mountain, differs much from what ones sees from the height of 10000 ft. Does God need to defend himself and give reasons as to why tragedies like Tsunami happen? David Hart writes, “God has no need of a passage through sin and death to manifest his glory in his creatures, or to join them perfectly to himself, or to elevate their minds to the highest possible vision of the riches of his nature.”(p.74) God is not a political subject that requires different types of comments with no final agreement. Tsunami disaster cannot be taken as the proof for God’s existence or non-existence. Tsunami disaster needs no condemnation or rationalization. It needs just acceptance. To summon the divine for every instance of suffering is an unscientific approach. As per the Christian revelation of the Father, God is all Light in whom there is no darkness. If you equate God with the evil happenings in the world, it goes against the revelation. Only a Realized Soul is able to comprehend the true nature of God. From the level of imperfections a human being cannot comprehend that which is perfect. Both the authors David Hart and Schubert M. Ogden agree on the final conclusion, but differ in details. They need to differ, because they are mind-level human beings. Conclusion: God is not the subject to be understood and explained in response to the happening of one Tsunami, one earthquake or any other type of natural calamity that brings untold suffering to the humanity. Howsoever powerful may be the waves, their real nature is mere water! Such unfortunate events provide us with yet another opportunity to understand the working of the Supreme Being, in his true form as Light! Both authors are in agreement on this aspect. ************ Works Cited Hart, David Bentley. The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, July 15, 2005. Ogden, Schubert, M. The Reality of God and Other Essays: Southern Methodist University Press, January 1, 1992. Read More