FOREWORD
The essay which follows is about the use of philosophical methods for the intended purpose of finding a closer, relational, dialogue with God, and learning more deeply the faith in such relationship. It is not about what some might perceive as a dichotomy of choices; unquestioned faith – or – intellectual pursuit of more clarity in faith, realizing neither to be possible without divine grace.
The reader is encouraged to consider all analysis here as alternative and inclusive of faith by grace, while suggesting for those so inclined that inquiry by the structure of existential philosophy may provide well-reasoned and comforting further confirmation of faith by grace, the understanding of which is embellished by philosophical methods.
There is no intention to suggest that philosophical method can create a faith not allowed by divine grace, no matter the method. Nor is there acceptance of the premise that faith not defined or pursued for greater glorification by systematic study is a resolute faith.
Philosophical method which seems to prove more of God, and a relationship with God, may not be accepted by some, and they may prefer claiming faith without diligence, but “… what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.” Austin Farrer.
For those who pursue philosophical argument as a disciplined and structured method of dialogue with God, it should be stated that such is more toward respectful discovery of God, even though not requiring intellectual proof of God. For it is belief that we all pursue. “Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” Id.
[“To inquire, respecting God, if it tends not to strife, but to discovery, is salutary. For it is written in David, ‘The poor eat, and shall be filled with the gift that comes from God, that is, knowledge’.” Ps. 22:26. Clement of Alexandria]*********************************************************************************************
There is no greater lifetime pursuit than that of seeking to know God. Except for the most confirmed atheist, most who pass through this universe want to know God on a level where they appreciate having communicated with God rather than just having prayed into the seeming void of existence. Those who seek to “co-municate” with God usually search for a relationship of many times more significance than being told to “just have faith”. Indeed, many see the resignation to faith alone as failing in the greatest commandment,
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with your soul and with all your mind.” (Matt 22:36-40)
Christ, in His wisdom, did not use words unnecessary to a complete answer when asked what the greatest commandment was. Had Jesus wanted to describe fulfilling the greatest Commandment with nothing more than blind faith and no intellectual inquiry beyond just accepting some undefined image and personality of God, he did not need to add the duty to employ your mind. A simple statement to love God with all your heart and soul would have fully described blind faith. His embellishment of the total commitment to love God with your mind and your heart and soul was a clear statement of the need to include an aggressive search for God with your mind and, thus, the free will of intellectual inquiry, questioning, and seeking confirmations.
Moving Beyond Blind Faith
God’s original purpose was to have a relationship with humanity. We have seen that God is inherently relational (Gen. 1:26), and humanity as his creation is likewise relational (Gen. 1:27). In fact, before the Fall, it seems God’s primary purpose was for an interactive relationship with his creations. We see God talking and working with Adam in naming the animals (Gen. 2:19). We see God visiting Adam and Eve and having regular conversation “in the garden at the time of the evening breeze” (Gen. 3:8). The importance to God of having human company and being able to communicate with them (i.e., “relationship”) seems more important to Him than the notion of “worship” since God does not mention worshiping Him until much later in Biblical history (Gen. 22:5).
God is more likely to have created man for an interactive relationship, or conversation, even as he had with Job, than to be rules-followers. While it is true that we cannot expect God to interact, have conversation, or otherwise have a relationship with us if we are conscious sinners, the mere avoidance of sin is not companionship, dialogue, or having the relationship God indeed sought in our creation.
Suppose we accept that God created us to be relational with Him. In that case, we must be more proactive in our continued seeking conversation and interaction with God than by mere avoidance of sin and no aggressive pursuit of God through reason. Millions of souls sitting around in silence relying upon faith do not accomplish one moment of dynamic dialogue and reflection of God’s image in us, which he surely sought in our creation.
So it is much more likely that we were to have a relationship with God than we were to be merely satisfied with the blind faith of not questioning. Seeking a relationship with God necessarily implies the need to engage at times in original thought. We should not limit our effort to learned principles of dogma.
With What Discipline Will We Find the Wisdom for a Closer Relationship with God?
A. The Bible. The Bible is essential for Old Testament history, prophecy, and the story of Christ. But suppose we are looking for a closer relationship with In that case, we must not be defeated by the more than 144 documented contradictions in the Bible (Burr, WH., Self-Contradictions of the Bible, 1860, reprinted Library of Alexandria, 1987), to include Christ’s statement that he was only sent to the Jews and not the Gentile “dogs”. (Both Matthew (Matthew 15:21-28) and Mark (Mark 7:24-30) record the event.)
Such perplexing contradictions, and others (Jesus speaking in parables to confuse purposely; Matt.13:10-17, the inconsistent teachings of Christ and Paul on the requirements for salvation Rom. 10:4 / Matt. 5:17-18; 1 Tim. 2:7 / Matt. 23:8, etc.) cause unnecessary frustration in the effort to strengthen faith and offer no insight to being closer to God. Likewise, the trying tales of slaughter and unreasoned vengeance, libidinous patriarchs, and a vengeful God are only perhaps rescued by the claim of allegory, but in no way helpful in going forward to a sense of closeness to God. Bible study, while undoubtedly necessary for history, the salvation offered to Jews and Gentiles, context, and to appreciate Christ’s sacrifice, can be a tedious experience of vagaries, if not riddles, rather than genuinely inspirational or motivating toward interaction and dialogue with God.
While the Bible is foundational, gives guidance, and contains the word of God, it is not all the word of God. This distinction must be kept in mind when we are confused by contradictions and vagaries created by man within the context of texts chosen by men over at least 400 years. Men who cleverly created the circular sanction of the Bible by proclaiming that their work must not be doubted because it was the word of God, when in fact it contains many pseudomonas epistles.
Accepting the word of God, even as Christ on earth, must be distinguished from following certain of the latitudes taken by human authors and compilers over 400 years. However, regardless of the literal sanctity of the Bible, the point here is that finding God for dialogue and a closer relationship does not require being distracted by the debate over literal or symbolic lessons of the Bible. But after forming our opinions on those issues, we are still required to reach out to God for what we may believe systematically is much-desired dialogue and effort on our part.
B. Theology.
The study of the nature of God and God’s relation to the world is helpful to begin to understand the vast history of religion. But theology is the “macro” (broad) view of God and faith rather than the more precise nature of God and God’s historical personality, which might help us know God. We can include the study of theology as a broader perspective on all that has gone forward between Man and God. Still, theology is generally not a predictor of how God wants us to seek Him in a determined and even intellectual manner (i.e., “… with all your mind” Matt 22:36-40).
C. Philosophy.
One definition of philosophy, as the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct, suggests how we can gradually use such a discipline to reach an intellectual understanding of God and faith. The reader must not confuse the notion of understanding God and faith for any suggestion that we are looking for an intellectual confirmation of God. If God allows us to progress, we know intuitively that he is helping us get closer, but only as close as our perseverance will take us. He will not encourage or reward an approach that does not energetically and intellectually proceed with diligence. And why could we expect such a reward when it is a “relationship” of dialogue that God desires, rather than reliance on blind faith, without invested effort?
It is important in philosophical analysis to consider what we might mean by “dialogue” with God. Suppose my motive is to employ careful, logical analysis (whether I fully succeed or not). In that case, it is not beyond reason to assume God’s participation, so long as my motives are consistent with seeking my understanding of God’s grace. It is no more unlikely than prayer being heard that I may assume God to listen to and encourage my effort to examine premises and conclusions by a philosophical method. That stated, with reasonable assumption, my “dialogue” with God then becomes a conversation in which God and I are processing logical analysis. Dialogue becomes a conversation in which we think together in a relationship, whether by prayer, meditation, or periodic divine messages at least dynamic enough to convince us at the time (such as God’s “conversation” with Augustine, prompting him to turn to the book of Romans and read a passage calling him to abandon sinful behaviors).
The very nature of philosophy is to look for rational explications and justifications for beliefs. Philosophy has its basis in reason rather than emotion, superstition, or fundamentalist dogma. Theology deals with thinking about religious beliefs rationally, but it presumes faith. Philosophy gives us the tools of inquiry to reach conclusions about our faith. There is no presumption of a well-reasoned “faith”, which may be corrupted by wayward fundamentalism of man.
Accepting that we may only have faith by grace from God does not excuse us from the duty to better understand the breadth and scope of such conviction. That energetic search pleases God and allows for dialogue with God.
God who created Man for companionship and relationship, well before the need to be worshipped, surely would not be happy with no effort to find and have a relationship with Him. The determinism of stubbornly relying upon a “faith” that the believer cannot define must surely disappoint a God who desires to question and be questioned, engage in the dialogue of free will, and come to conclusions with His creation even as He did with Job, or St. Augustine.
The assignment for which Man will receive “extra credit” from God is to seek God with all your mind. This inquiry and God’s encouragement and participation, which, by the word of Christ, He is impliedly committed to, if we apply “all our mind”, can best take place with the tools of philosophical inquiry.
Philosophy’s Role in the Early Church
The early Christians (70-412 A.D.), in their apologetics and revelations, did not accept the beliefs of the Gnostics and Stoics that one could either be saved by God or that they could find God by deterministic faith alone. Pre-biblical philosophers such as Augustine, rather than clerics and theologians, employing the logic of philosophy, developed the concept of a relational God who interacts with humans, rather than a Stoic or Gnostic God who unilaterally foreordained every event.
Stated more simply, the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels existed during the first through the fourth centuries, but before the work of Athanasius (c. 298-373), there was no composite Bible of well-developed “instruction” on finding God. The task of foretelling how we are to go beyond a passive faith to an energetic intellectual pursuit of God, was accomplished by philosophers, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. More so than by any more divine person, to include the Apostle Paul and all who preceded him.
It should be remembered that almost 300 years after the work of Paul, one of the greatest frustrations of the emperor Constantine was still all the many interpretations of Christian doctrine offered by outright heretics.
Clement of Alexandria and Perfection of Faith by Knowledge
Much of this heretical confusion was made more apparent by the methods of philosophy employed by the Greek philosophers such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215). He taught that God used philosophy to inform the Greeks and eventually guide them to the fullness of truth in Christ.
Clement saw Greek philosophy as an early stage of the progressive revelation of God’s truth to human beings. The relation between knowledge and faith to him was that faith was the foundation of all knowledge. However, the perfection of faith requires the individual to seek more excellent knowledge of God (as foreshadowed by Ps. 22-26), and the universe, to penetrate more deeply into understanding what he believes.
Philosophy is permanently necessary to attain this faith of knowledge, which was much higher than the “faith of conjecture” or “blind faith”. Apostolic teaching, reasoning beyond the finite to a closer understanding and relationship with God, requires new examination and argument form available through philosophical method.
Employing Philosophy as a Means to Fulfill Jesus’ Clear Instruction
When Jesus instructed us to employ our mind in manifesting our love for God, surely He meant for us to please God with the intensity of our thoughts toward a realization of God. If we do so, we must have a discipline of thought rather than random reflections. The very nature of philosophy in insisting upon a logical, rigorous examination of all notions of the divine provides discipline by which we proceed.
This is not to confuse the peripheral preliminary issues of the existence of God, or not, with the more important thought process for those convicted already of God’s presence, but want to examine what follows from that existence and how we may achieve whatever it is.
Francis Bacon once said, “[a] little bit of philosophy leads you to atheism, but depth in the philosophy leads you back to religion”. A long ontological argument about the existence of God is useless to the convicted. However, employing the rules of accepting nothing about my potential relationship with God as a given (i.e., philosophical argument), and pursuing one or more philosophical approaches to that issue, is helpful and more so than confusing parables or contradictions that may cause one to stumble into frustration.
Seeking God as True Philosophy
The Roman statesman, Symmachus, said of seeking God, “One does not approach so great a mystery by a single path”. His advice and our acceptance of philosophy as a discipline for such pursuits allow for another path.
As we seek God, we must accept our conclusions about the real rewards of that search. Philosophy, existential philosophy, in particular, teaches us that we have complete freedom in how and for how long we continue such search. Also consistent with existential philosophy, man’s complete freedom requires him to take responsibility for what he will become and the limits of his search for God. Knowledge of this complete freedom causes anxiety, fearing that he may too soon abandon his search. But existential philosophy also teaches him that with perseverance, he will establish an identity that is fulfilled by the search alone. Happiness comes from the relentless search, just as the realized “being” of existential philosophy requires a relentless search for our concomitant “essence”.
As happiness comes from the relentless search, we see with the help of the discipline of philosophy that we stayed the course, which might have been altered had we only relied upon the “single path” of the sometimes contradictory scriptures.
Relics of an otherwise narrower God, sometimes confused for us by reliance upon faith alone, are left behind, and we are happy with our search as Christ instructed:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with your soul and with all your mind.” (Matt 22:36-40)
II. Pursuing a Relationship with God through Existential Philosophy
The Bible and Christian theology assume the existence of God, and we may study both with that most predictable conclusion assured. However, with only such study, we would be left with frustration in the conclusion that we might never be any closer to a relationship with God than when God left Job pondering how his dialogue with God had gone. If we are to get beyond confirming God’s existence and on to dialogue or relationship with God, we must employ a further discipline of study, thought, and rigorous examination.
If properly constructed, philosophical examination can provide structure and discipline beyond confirming God’s existence and on to a relationship and dialogue with God. Existentialism is the philosophical discipline that focuses on the individual’s duty to go beyond blind faith, and the moral assumption that man can, and should, persist toward a relationship with God, rather than just a faith that God exists.
Existentialism as a Frame of Reference
Existentialism is a philosophical inquiry that explores the problem of human existence and centers on the lived experience of the thinking, feeling, and acting individual, negating the notion of blind conformity. Since the days of the original Christian Existentialist, Soren Kierkegaard; if we seek a more intense effort at having a personal relationship with God, more than a benign faith, there are certain essentials of Existentialism that we must examine.
While much has been written to define a common core of agreed characteristics of Existentialism, some are prevalent in any consensus of existential philosophers. Agreement on the characteristics of existentialists always includes the realization that they have free will in all their conduct and are immediately subject to anxiety should they not fully exercise such free will toward the authentic life, free of contradictions and failure to take action. They are free of any notion that they would stop short of their search by an undefined faith, when God remains available for dialogue and a relationship only limited by the grace of knowing that He might allow an informed relationship with Him.
Free Will as Affected by Blind Faith or Existential Action.
The existentialist knows that the individual has complete free will and has a responsibility to make choices and pursue an authentic life. Should the existentialist fail to make responsible choices, he likewise knows that he must accept full responsibility for failure to pursue the authentic life. This combination of complete freedom of will and duty to make responsible choices causes anxiety for the existentialist, should he fail to pursue a more informed relationship with God. Within the context of accepting blind faith, over the possibility of having more than blind faith, to avoid existential angst, the existentialist must push forward for what relationship with God might be possible beyond blind faith.
By way of example, given the characteristics of the existentialist to realize free will, make responsible choices, and at all times be a thinking individual who acts on rational thoughts, the existentialist may not leave God’s omniscience to matter of blind faith. He must find divine dialogue with God about a practical effect of God knowing all choices he will make in his lifetime.
If the existentialist, rather than leaving the outcome of God’s vision for him solely to blind faith, creates a “self-fulfilling prophecy” of immediately correcting some behavior on his part inconsistent with what he would want God to see in his future, he has by such dialogue made his life immediately more authentic and pleasing to God. The existentialist has no choice in his makeup but to seek action allowed by free will and responsibility for actions. Blind faith in God’s omniscience might have depicted the same outcome later in his life. Still, the existentialist, being true to his duty to act toward his authenticity, may not remain within the conformity of inaction, relying entirely upon the easier path of blind faith only.
Suppose the existentialist was amid sinful conduct, such as sex without marriage in a relationship, when it occurred to him by philosophical reasoning that God could see every decision he would make in his lifetime. He now has the choice of blind faith in how that will come out, which allows rationalized delay in remediation of his sinful conduct. Or, because he approaches a relational dialogue with God from the infrastructure and characteristics of an existentialist, he will choose the action that is required of him, because he cannot tolerate the anxiety of free will taking no action toward a more authentic life. He must reconcile his knowledge of what God will see without the limits of time, with what is occurring within his earthly sequential time.
Had the existentialist not pursued philosophical inquiry as to God’s omniscience and free will, he would not have ever considered the pragmatic choice of creating a favorable self-fulfilling prophesy and immediate reconciliation of his current conduct (while acting in his contemporary time), so that God would see in his view of all time, a more perfect action. For nowhere in the scriptures is there such a discussion. Only the philosopher would, by a full analysis of such a concept, conclude with the requirement of immediate action.
This choice by the existentialist represents a practical result of seeking a relationship with God through philosophical inquiry, rather than just blind faith and no such analysis. By philosophical inquiry, using the profile of an existentialist, the individual comes more efficiently to the dialogue with God, which leads to more immediate action than had he remained stultified by scripture and blind faith alone.
Finding God through philosophy, and existential philosophy, in particular, has pragmatic promise of a relational dialogue with God, rather than just esoteric theory.
III. Relational Dialogue with God in the Context of Existential Pursuit
Faith Examined by Reason
Faith allowed to us by God’s grace is, by definition, beyond question. Faith by servile obedience to certain rules, often misconstrued by man’s dogma, is without proper foundation and is the source of much doubt, angst, and even sin.
For example, suppose that certain fundamentalist dogma would have us violate the second greatest commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Matt. 22:39. Suppose my “faith” is not achieved by a real relationship and dialogue with God. In that case, it may only be allegiance to denominationalism, and man’s twisted dogma, requiring me to be guilty of racism, mistreatment of immigrants, and judging the private life of my fellow man. “For with what judgment ye judge, judgment shall be given on you.” Matt. 7:2
Nevertheless, suppose my comfort is in dogma. In that case, I am likely to rest upon the notion that I have “faith” unless I am challenged to know my faith by an active process of questioning and seeking a meaningful dialogue with God, during which God will surely give me knowledge, along with the grace of faith. Thus, the notion that faith should not be challenged by reason should be scrutinized. There are too many versions of “faith” within the mind and imagination of fundamentalist extremes not to require such reasonable examination.
By way of an undeniable, blatant example of wayward “faith”, suppose I am told that my “faith” requires me to support my fundamentalist church leaders; and support a proven adulterer, misogynist, swindler, and liar for elected office. Is this not heresy, rather than the more careful advice, “…not to associate with anyone…if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed or is an idolater…or swindler” 1 Cor. 5-11. At once, I must challenge and consider the reasonableness of using the term “faith”. For “faith” used in such a hypocritical and manipulative manner is not faith, but heresy, and borders on blasphemy.
Faith Confirmed by Existential Pursuit of Dialogue with God
Augustine believed that intellectual inquiry into a “relational faith” was a permissible process of seeking a full understanding of that faith. Otherwise, one could spend a lifetime ascribing faith to false doctrine. Likewise, the Greeks believed that philosophy was a “schoolmaster” to bring them to Christ, just as the law brought the Jews with its rigorous examinations of truth. In this manner, Greek philosophers such as Clement of Alexandria examined the early creeds of Christianity, using philosophical notions of substance, being, and person, to expose and eliminate heresies, which otherwise would have allowed false claims of “faith”.
This philosophical process, alone, repudiates the broad and very general claim that one may not apply reason to faith as an alternative to the notion that any concept realized in the seeker’s mind is proven from God by grace. Just as it would be error to require proof of God, so too would it be error to accept any random notion of “faith” without a perceived fidelity as a proper God-send of grace from which faith would spring.
On the contrary, inquiring respectfully of God for a relationship and dialogue may well precede such a relationship and God’s granting the grace of faith. To assume otherwise would be to assume that faith came from us. It cannot. Faith comes by grace, just as loving God cannot be by our choosing, any more than we choose to fall in love with humans. Loving God as grace from God comes from God.
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” Eph. 2:8-9
Asking for dialogue and a relationship with God to include knowledge from God, and receiving the grace of faith, are not mutually exclusive. A loving God will indeed not be offended by the existentialist intensity inherent in seeking knowledge, not as proof of having received the grace of faith, but as a further richness in the relationship perceived by such existentialists.
We have seen that God is inherently relational (Gen. 1:26), and humanity as his creation is likewise relational (Gen. 1:27). Just as a prayer for sufficiency, wellness, or direction is appropriate, so too is the prayer for knowledge to continue increasing the dialogue and relationship with God.
For as Clement of Alexandria says, “[t]o inquire, then, respecting God, if it tend not to strife, but to discovery, is salutary. For it is written in David, ‘The poor eat, and shall be filled with the gift that comes from God, that is, knowledge’.” Ps. 22:26.
The Existentialist Seeking a Relationship and Dialogue with God
From the unique perspective of the existentialist, what is dialogue with God, and can such dialogue establish an undeniable relationship?
The word dialogue comes from the Greek words dia and logos. Dia means ‘through’; logos generally means ‘truth’, ‘word’, or ‘meaning’. Thus, a dialogue is a flow of meaning. The Greeks extended the other meaning of to gather together in an intimate awareness of relationships among things in the natural world.
In our effort to apply the unique perspective of the existentialist in prayer or meditation with God, logos, in English, best translates to ‘relationship‘. For, by the very nature of the existentialist’s urgency, complete freedom, and belief in the legitimacy of the effort he has undertaken as a “leap of faith” (Kierkegaard), he cannot imagine less than God providing knowledge to him in this mutual dialogue. His faith in this dialogue, and the resulting relationship, is no less than the faith of grace, and it should receive the same validation.
From all such translations and an understanding of the faith-based initiative of the existentialist, we can now look upon the word logos in the context of scriptural foundation. The Book of John begins: “In the beginning was the Word (“logos” from Greek translation)…” John 1:1. We could now hear this as “In the beginning was the Relationship…” [Much of the translation and premise for this analysis is from William Isaacs, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together].
Within all of philosophy, the fundamental profile of Existentialism would allow us to create such a valid potential path to seeking dialogue and a relationship with God, where reason is coupled with faith toward ever-increasing “knowing God”.
Thus, the existentialist method is a fulfilling complement to, and not in competition with, Faith.