Chapter 1: Testing Faith Edited

Chapter 1: Testing Faith
Bernard Lonergan was a Jesuit priest, science teacher, and theologian who finished his career serving the Catholic Church in Rome. One of his beliefs was that our beliefs need to pass the test of validity by our observations.

For example, if we believe that God punishes bad people and rewards good people, that needs to be proven by what we observe. Our honest observations will reveal that belief to be false.

People used to believe heaven was somewhere up there above the clouds with God and others looking down and watching us. A member of a lectionary study group I led shared how a crisis in faith for her was when Yuri Gagarin commented that he did not see God anywhere around him from his perspective in space. Even though most people knew for centuries that heaven was not really up there, it took a person going into space to make it real for her.

For any faith we hold to be reliable and durable, I believe it needs to pass this test. There are many aspects of faith that cannot be tested this way. We cannot prove there is a god / Holy Mystery / Spirit or there is not a god / Holy Mystery / Spirit. We can prove there is not a god who behaves in ways we decide god must behave, that is we can test some of our assumptions about god / Holy Mystery / Spirit, just as in the second paragraph and third paragraph.

The challenge is recognizing assumptions we may have about God. Many Americans believed their country was god’s chosen country and were traumatized by the attack on the twin towers. “How could God allow this to happen?” was a phrase I heard several times in 2001. They had shrunk the concept of God to a god who was basically a protector or mascot of the USA.

Not everyone will accept that a belief is wrong when it appears to fail a test in the world. For me, that is their problem. The next chapter explores some ways in which I see creation as revelation.

 

[Waterfall]

Surely God has evolved over the years for some, not that God may have changed in anyway, but rather our perspective has.
One of my favourite quotes that I have heard is, " history is our teacher, the present is our creation."
In my opinion God has given us the concept of time in order to sort things out during our own lifetime and our descendents, otherwise everything would happen at once and I doubt that we could hold that much knowledge effectively.
How we view God is limited, but we are given the world full of signs and laws and the universe to show us that there is always more.

 

[Mendalla]

Surely God has evolved over the years for some, not that God may have changed in anyway, but rather our perspective has.

I think that's exactly what Jim is talking about. As we realize that this or that belief about God doesn't make sense given experience, then we adjust our understanding of God.

My problem now is that I haven't found a test that a personal, theistic God can pass. God of the gaps, for instance, does not work for me so when someone goes "but science can't explain this so God" my response is "no, science can't explain this yet". Similarly, when someone says "my healing was impossible, it's a miracle" my response tends to be "or maybe it is possible and we just haven't found an explanation for it yet."

So the problem for me becomes that I don't have a place left for God. If science explains the world and I don't have mystical experiences (which could, of course, be as yet unexplained neurological phenomena), I am left trying to construct reasons, often complicated ones, for there to be a God when the simpler approach is simply to act as if there is not one. So I do.

 

[jimkenney12]

I think that's exactly what Jim is talking about. As we realize that this or that belief about God doesn't make sense given experience, then we adjust our understanding of God.

My problem now is that I haven't found a test that a personal, theistic God can pass. God of the gaps, for instance, does not work for me so when someone goes "but science can't explain this so God" my response is "no, science can't explain this yet". Similarly, when someone says "my healing was impossible, it's a miracle" my response tends to be "or maybe it is possible and we just haven't found an explanation for it yet."

So the problem for me becomes that I don't have a place left for God. If science explains the world and I don't have mystical experiences (which could, of course, be as yet unexplained neurological phenomena), I am left trying to construct reasons, often complicated ones, for there to be a God when the simpler approach is simply to act as if there is not one. So I do.

Thank you Medalla. I believe I covered your last point in in Introductionl. I had experiences I interpreted as connective with something that could be explained as neurological, but the number, variety, and timing of those experiences make it easier to believe they were connective. Most other people have not had those experiences and there is little else in this world that needs any kind of spiritual source to explain.

 

[BetteTheRed]

there is little else in this world that needs any kind of spiritual source to explain.

Ah, to me, the persistent problem of the world as we perceive it is "why bad things happen to good people", and vice versa.

OTOH, random death/disease/disorder, regardless of worth, happens everywhere in the animal/plant/fungal/other kingdoms. What does an external/supernatural being have to do with any reality? Eternal fence-sitter, here.

 

[Luce NDs]

Ah, to me, the persistent problem of the world as we perceive it is "why bad things happen to good people", and vice versa.

OTOH, random death/disease/disorder, regardless of worth, happens everywhere in the animal/plant/fungal/other kingdoms. What does an external/supernatural being have to do with any reality? Eternal fence-sitter, here.

Much of this due to what we don't know in essence ... departure of psyche to allow mental disturbance with passions in the garden of rye body ---
Hieronymus Monk? Perhaps pseudonym of the unseen and wee flashes in the forest gump (a lo' spot as a swamp) where disgruntled spirits couple up ... Dark Forest Hams ... as shadowed buttes ... buttes stressing exceptive states ... exceptional departure from thought?

hus some say: "Nice Bum Mere has!" In some traditions that is Mariah or even Marah ... a place to float distant concerns as Shanghaied? Why ships are fey, flighty or ephemeral as vessels ... brain drain as they strain to accept the alter character ... sometimes this reciprocates ... but said to be all in your mind as if it was something that appears naught as incarnate passions ... big odds ... them at the trough, believing they were in heaven ... Barbara Kingsolver resolved this in novel form ... poly underestimated ... like that old sleepy hollow ... RIP? Be concerned it may rise in flaming form ... as Aniis Ong ... inner character? Some of these personalities are sacred and hidden ... they are storied images introverted?

May have dropped over the horizon and for the Pan Handled ... flat out lost to vision ... that what you dish out returns in the come around ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Imagine well rounded psyches as spherical belles; ringers?