To ask whether God is necessary is in various forms a very common question. It is also a deeply revealing question since the answers we offer unveils something of what our ultimate concern is – our ultimate concern is deeply connected to the reason for asking the question in the first place – and thus the nature of our faith. It could therefore be said that our answers to some extent defines the question since we cannot speak of our ultimate concern without at least implicitly also speak about God. Some might object to this claim by saying that it is possible for an atheist to speak of ultimate concern without God, but my response would simply be that a world unchained from God is a world without ultimate concern. The fact that many would contest this statement is just a clear indication that modern atheism, theoretically speaking, should be described as a misdirected theology rather than the result of scientific achievements or sophisticated reasoning.
I believe that the understanding of God as a necessary being always moves us towards an idolatrous faith situated within systems of thought created by man. The fundamental problem is thus that the categories of thought are too narrow to contain what one attempts to talk about. I would further argue that to assume that God is necessary not simply diminishes God but also that such believes are potentially dangerous and oppressive. God is not to be thought of as a necessary being that we weave into our beliefs of existence in order to cover the gaps of our understandings. Rather than thinking of God as a ‘deus ex machina’ we should acknowledge that God is the Crucified One who forsook heaven to perform the ultimate kenotic move for the sake of the world. Theology should therefore begin in the receiving of the broken body of the Crucified since this practice acknowledges the brokenness of humanity while it allows for God to be God and our ultimate concern to be shaped by the apocalyptic event of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.
If our theology is a result of the conviction that God is necessary, then God is necessarily confined by our reason since our reason is what determines what is necessary. Unfortunately, this way of reasoning is all too common because modernistic theology has bought into the lie that our epistemology must be rooted in our own, individual existence. The modern quest for self-certainty resulted in an anthropocentric worldview that expelled faith from its rightful place and considered it to be either distinct from reason (atheism) or the result of reason (conservative and liberal Christianity). The truth is that everything we consider to be reasonable essentially is the result of faith. Christian theology should therefore be understood as faith seeking understanding, not understanding seeking faith, and at a fundamental level the humbling task of the theologian is therefore to make sense of that which God has revealed in order for it to guide our understanding of the world and our actions in it.
Is God necessary? I initially remarked that our answer to this question to some extent defines the question and in light of what I have said in this post I therefore feel compelled to say no, God is not necessary. That is not to say that God is not, rather that the question itself is corrupt since it is spelled out from an anthropocentric perspective.
I dearly enjoy your articles for they stir critical thinking in me as we are united in Christ, though diverse in our understands in some areas.
I think God is necessary, as used in philosophy, in a way that He exists and immpossible not to exist. Necessity is great making property, as Alvin Plantinga contended. Thus it does not diminish God but quite the contrary is true.
I will contend:
1. A being that has maximum degree of greatness, must be a necessary being.
2. God is a being with maximum degree of greatness
3. Therefore God must be a necessary being.
We Christians believe God to be omnipotent, omnipresent, morally perfect as degree of His greatness. Necessity, is one of great making propert, for a being that exists in all possible worlds is greater than a being that does not exists in all possible worlds.
Is God necessary? If we use the word philosophically and theologically, namely we move, breathe, etc because God “is before all things, and in him all things hold together”(Col. 1:17 cf Hebrews 1:3 ), then yes, God is necessary.
Depending on the question and presuppositions of theologians, I think, it is best to begin with both receiving Christ and understand what it means, who He is. Thus I will not have either-or but both-and.
Let me know your thoughts.
- Prayson
I’m familiar with the ontological argument and I have spent some serious time thinking about it but I don’t find it convincing since it relies on a number of arbitrary and speculative presuppositions. I understand that Christians has this need for certainty about the existence of God but the Gods who emerges from this way of reasoning is always created in the image of men and confined by human reason. The unfortunate consequence is that such Gods are more like some people than others and consequently they become a legitimation for oppression. Basically you will have to adapt and become like the one(s) who owns the right to define who God is. I’m not saying that God is ‘wholly other’ in the Barthian sense, rather my claim is that we should not allow for our reason to confine who God has to be. I hope you can see the difference between those two ways of looking at this issue. (Sorry for taking so long time to give you an answer, I haven’t had time to focus on the blog lately.)
I follow your concern. You and I believe for certain, I hope, that God exists. As the author of Hebrews contended: ” And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him”(11:6 ESV)
Though Anselm’s ontological argument is heavily metaphysical, we have to remember that it was through reflecting God’s natures which God revealed in Scripture. This case came from his prayer.
From Scripture we know that men swear by something greater than themselves(Heb. 6:16), but “since there was no one greater for him[God] to swear by, he swore by himself”(v.13).
From the Scripture, God revealed to be Holy Holy Holy, the moral excellence as God is perfectly just and righteous in all his way. God from Genesis to Revelation is alpha and omega, he was, is and he is to come. He is I Am. All these attributes are not emerging from mere speculation but God’s own revelation.
Ontological argument simply say if God as describe in the Bible(maximally excellent in knowledge, power, and moral) possibly exists, then it is impossible for Him not to exists.
Thus I think a god who is not necessary is not the God we encounter in the Bible, reveal theology nor is He in correct reflection of nature, natural theology. The God who revealed Himself contend that He was before Creation, from everlasting to everlasting. Everything depends on Him for their existence. If the Bible is true, and that everything holds because of Him, then God is necessary.
Thus I think a god who is not necessary is too small. Let me know your thoughts.
Yours in Christ,
Prayson
The onto-theo-logical God you so desire to defend is not the God of the Bible. Of much of Christian theology, yes, but not of the Bible. I agree that God is, but I refrain from speaking of God as existence in the modern sense of the word. That is simply to say too much which in effect belittles God. Further I would say that I think your reading of these passages is anachronistic since it assumes a metaphysics that wasn’t present in first century Judaism.
O Josef
I desire to defend the God who is necessary. Lets put the metaphysics or much of Christian theology aside, as focus on Scripture alone and reason together.
“[Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”(Col. 1:15-17 ESV)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”(John 1:1-3 ESV)
Without Logos not any thing made that was made. All things were made through Logos and for Logos. In Logos all things hold together. If you agree with what God has revealed about Himself then I do not see how you think the God I so dearly desire to defend is not the God of the Bible.
If nothing that was made was made without Logos, then Logos is necessary to have anything that was made. If everything hold together because of Logos, then it follows that Logos is necessary for anything to hold together.
Josef, this is simple reasoning. A simple example without oxygen there is no fire. This means for there to be fire, oxygen is necessary.
It is the God who is not necessary Josef that is not the God of the Bible.
Let me know your thought Josef.
- Prayson
But all these pieces of Scripture that you are quoting simply proves my point, the word “God” refers to “the Crucified One”, not some form of preconceived notion about who God necessarily is.
Josef my brother in Christ. I agree with you that God is the Crucified One, as you saw on my first comment. I have both-and, while you have either-or.
Do you agree that if all things are made by Logos and that without Logos, we would not be here? If you do, then even though you are against a form of preconceived notion about who God is, you hold to a God who is necessary for our own existence.
I think the god you hold of either-or is too small and not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is the both-and. The God who necessarily exists for there to be anything in first place, and the Crucified One.
Yes, but we’re discussing epistemology, hence you cannot have it both ways. The one will always be the result of the other. You understand Christ through the lens of your necessary God, the God of Perminedes, I speak of God from the vantage point of a life in Christ.
I begin with the Bible Josef and end with the Bible.
Do you agree Josef that without Logos, nothing that was made, visible or invisible, was made?
I believe that you understand yourself to stand outside of what you are investigating, which is not possible. Accept that your reason is already confined by your language, your social and cultural world. Basically you don’t begin with the Bible because your beginning was given to you, not something you chose. We can say things about our beginning only retrospectively and you don’t approach the Bible from a universal perspective on the outside. A Christian perspective is, I believe, to retrospectively say that we are within the Biblical text in the same way as we are in our language. To admit that it is so eliminate the possibility to do theology with any preconceived notions about God. Consequently I don’t think that you defend God, rather you are defending yourself.
Josef , “difficult as it may be, it is vitally important to separate argument sources and styles from argument content. In argument the medium is not the message”, Bruce N. Waller would remind us.
Josef, could you help me understand. Do you agree that the Bible says that without Logos nothing that was created was created? And without Logos, there would be nothing that is of made made?
You want me to step into your modernistic worldview and reason with you, but that’s not going to happen. I could say that I agree with the notion ‘that without Logos nothing that was created was created’, but it doesn’t mean the same thing when I say it as when you say it.
Josef, I simply want us to use common sense. I am trying to find a notion/premises we both agree, using standard logic.
You agreed that with the notion:” without Logos nothing that was created was created”. Lets call this premise 1.
Would you agree, if I formulate P1 as x is true if and only if y is true(x standing for “things that are created exist” and y be “Logos exists”)?
This is exactly my point because ‘common sense’ is always situated within a structure of thought, and you want me to step into your structure and reason with you. I’m not saying that the arguments you are putting forward are fallacious, they are quite reasonable given your current framework. But I don’t accept your structure, the framework within which you think, since it is ultimately worked out from an individualistic epistemology, which asumes a universal perspective. We do not have access to such a perspective, hence I wrote in my article that
“Unfortunately, this way of reasoning is all too common because modernistic theology has bought into the lie that our epistemology must be rooted in our own, individual existence. The modern quest for self-certainty resulted in an anthropocentric worldview that expelled faith from its rightful place and considered it to be either distinct from reason (atheism) or the result of reason (conservative and liberal Christianity). The truth is that everything we consider to be reasonable essentially is the result of faith.”
If you want to critique my position, this is what you need to critique if you desire for this discussion to be of any value.
Josef, if we cannot agree on simple logic, finding a common grounds, true premises that we both agree then I do not know how I can reason with you.
Thank you Josef, and keep up the good work. Lets keep falling in love with our God, the Crucified One.
Prayson
Well, that’s what I have been saying all along, but you continuously refuse to discuss the reason for why we cannot agree with each other so I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Be blessed Josef. Know I dearly value your effort to make God know. I may not agree with you on some points, but I treasure your work.
May the love of Christ grow in us as we grow in unity in our diversity. Grace and love be upon you Josef.
Thanks. Be blessed.
You rock Josef. Sorry if I were too much.
No worries.
Interesting piece. As an atheist I am inclined to dispute your statement about ultimate concern. However, upon reflection I am not sure of your exact meaning of that term. As I understand it and as is used in many philosophies and in much of common usage atheists can indeed have ultimate concerns. But, again, meanings of the same word can vary between people.
Anyway, I enjoy your site.
I also want to thank you for following my blog. I find it enjoyable to look at the blogs of those who do so because there is such a surprising variety. I have several Christians following it, which was not something I expected when I started it up. I am pleased at this though as I also follow several Christian and Muslims sites among others. I value communication and seeking to understand even if we disagree on important issues.
Again, thanks for following my blog.
As I said in the post, not many atheists embrace the inevitable consequence of their rejection of God. When I say truly ultimate, or ultimate concern, I do so in the Tillichian sense of the words.
Been awhile since I read Tillich. Reading your arguments here I realize that your definition of faith is also very Tillichian. Knew it had a familiar feel, but as I said, it has been many years since I read Tillich.
Took a quick look to refresh some of my memory and came across this quote by Tillich in regards to ultimate concern.
“Religions is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary and which itself contains the answer to the question of a meaning of our life.”
I see no issue here with atheists “being grasped by an ultimate concern.” It not only can happen, it has.
Tillich uses this idea of ultimate concern in the development of his ideas about religion and, most especially, faith but, I believe, he also thought that even naturalists and atheists could have ultimate concerns. Cognitive, political, moral concerns can all become urgent and a matter of ultimate concern, one that requires a total surrender of the self. This is not unique to those who believe in a God.
Anyway, just some of my thoughts on this.
Enjoy!
Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it. I agree that Tillich wouldn’t say that atheists cannot have ultimate concerns, but as I pointed out in the post, he would say these concerns are misdirected and idolatrous since they elevate what is not ultimate to the ranks of ultimacy. My claim is not that atheists cannot experience politics or whatever as being that of ultimate concern, rather I’m saying that this experience is not consistent with atheism as such. Hence the ground for the experience is a sort of unconscious acceptance of a religious framework of thought. But please tell me how an uncreated universe, free from any inherent purpose whatsoever, can give rise to the belief that something is truly ultimate. I think that Nietzsche, Sartre and a few other atheist philosophers would agree with me here while modern day atheists like Dawkins don’t want to accept the inevitable consequences of a world unchained from God…
The problem area for us, I believe, is the definition of ultimate. For you it appears to mean something that has to exist outside of us and within the structure of the universe. In other words ultimate cannot originate within the human but must be given to us from outside ourselves. If this is correct then, by your definition, most atheists do not and cannot have an ultimate concern. Their ultimate concern will most often be something outside of themselves but the concern will have its wellspring from within.
However, I would argue that such a definition of an externally originating ultimate is flawed. Instead I believe what is of ultimate concern is based upon what we are as a species and who we are as individuals. I further believe that the actions of both the theist who believes in an ultimate originating from outside themselves and the atheist seeing it originating internally would behave and act the same; that were you to look without knowing who was the theist and who the atheist, at what their ultimate concern and how they acted and behaved towards it you would not see a difference.
To me this is not the adaption of a “religious framework” but rather the workings of a human need that winds up being defined differently dependent upon ones beliefs. Rather like two streams meeting as a river – each stream is different, but as a river they are the same.
I would also point out that just as all Christians are not the same, neither are all atheists. There are atheists who disagree with much of the thoughts of those you listed (myself being one who would disagree with much but not all). In fact, there are such things as spiritual or mystical atheists – sounds strange, but then strangeness is built into humanity it seems.
I would also suggest that atheistic pantheists such as Albert Einstein could be considered a special group that comes close to bridging the gap in definitions between theistic and atheistic ultimates.
Finally, I have a feeling that we would disagree on the meaning and results of a world unchained from God.
Looked at as a general discussion I think that we agree with each other regarding the religious vis-à-vis the atheist understanding of “the truly ultimate” or “ultimate concern”. (I’m reluctant to simply accept what you said completely because I think we would have to expand the discussion for me to even have the possibility to provide a properly thought-out answer.) What I referred to in the post is that most atheists at least desire to find an ultimate concern that originates outside of themselves. Universal moral values is probably the most common telos of this desire. Further I would claim that most atheists actually believes in such values, such as “the universal declaration of human rights”, which is a conclusion that seems arbitrary if moral values originates within each individual since you really have no argument for why that is when faced with opposing views. You can obviously appeal to “what we are as a species and who we are as individuals”, or simply say that you feel that these rights should be respected, but I don’t see why your understanding trumps someone else’s. The truth is that not all people believe in these rights and it’s an interesting discussion why that is, but I find it equally interesting to discuss why people actually believe in them while rejecting universal values.
My understanding in regards to your talk about two streams meeting as a river is thus what I articulated in the post; that modern atheism, theoretically speaking, should be described as a misdirected theology since their worldviews depend on a God they don’t believe in. So I think we agree with each other in regards to that people are part of the same river. Our disagreement is our different understandings about the river. As I made clear in my next post I think most Christians has misunderstood this question as well: http://freestylechristianity.com/2013/03/15/is-everything-permitted/
And I’m obviously aware that not all atheists are alike. On that issue we’re completely in agreement so I don’t see any reason to argue any further about that. What could be said though, is that I find it fascinating that the gap between the old divide between theism and atheism seems to become smaller now days. I end on that note by recommending a conversation between two of my favorite public intellectuals, Cornel West and Simon Critchley, about the latter’s book “The Faith of the Faithless”.
First, thanks for following my poetry blog. I have a religious blog that I’ve started but haven’t yet done a lot of work on. I’ve not seen the phrasing “Is God necessary?” before, except in the thought of unbelievers. So, I’m not certain I understand it from your vantage point. If one is starting without faith in God and asking the question, then I would say that God is necessary in order to explain all we see, that nothing makes sense without His existence. If one is starting with the Bible, it shows Him to be necessary in sustaining the world (Heb.1), in providing, in salvation, etc.
I understand what you are saying but that is not what I’m talking about in this post. Rather I’m discussing the vantage point for theology. When I say that God is not necessary it’s a specific understanding about who God is that I’m denouncing – the necessary God. Hence I wrote ‘If our theology is a result of the conviction that God is necessary, then God is necessarily confined by our reason since our reason is what determines what is necessary.’ If God is necessary for there to be life is another question, one which I don’t discuss in this post.
Thanks for explaining. What if our theology is a result of the Bible as God’s word, which describes Him as necessary in the ways I gave? I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the idea.
I haven’t said that you are wrong, only that I have been discussing a different question than the one you are referring to.
Thanks. I didn’t mean to imply that you were charging me with being wrong. I wouldn’t have minded if you did.
I just thought that perhaps you were speaking of a theology derived from one’s own reasoning versus a revealed theology, such as the Bible.
I do, and my claim is that we shouldn’t believe that our reason is sufficient to understand who God has to be. So I think we’re on the same page…
Okay, I think that I might understand what you mean by God being “necessary.” It is not what I thought you meant. However, I would still appreciate some elaboration, because it’s still foggy in my mind. Just the definition of that term in the context of your argument would clear it up a lot. Thanks (:
You can read my old posts if you want better definitions. I don’t have a structured plan but usually each post is connected to the one before. Hence you’ll get much more if you start from the beginning.
hey Josef, great post here, very thought provoking. Would like to share one or two verse from scripture here if you will. They serve as a simple answer to the question – “is God necessary?”
God is God and He speaks for Himself. His word is amply clear that He is necessary.
- all things were created through him and for him. Col. 1:16
- he upholds the universe by the word of his power. Heb. 1:3
- and he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Col. 1:17
Jesus said,
“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Some may claim they have no need of Him, but I often wonder how are they going to fix their sin problem.
Thanks for your time and for your post…
As I have said in the post and elsewhere, this question is very multifaceted, hence there are no ‘simple answers’. Rather if we desire to provide an answer to the question we need to discuss what the question means, to do otherwise is to skip ahead and the result will not only be intellectually meaningless (since we don’t know what question we’re answering) but also harmful (which I explained briefly in the following post). The ‘simple answer’ that you and some other people provide to the question I have posed are not relevant to my discussion since you haven’t taken into consideration the way I have defined the question. To be clear, in order to answer this question – whether God is necessary – my claim is that we first need to ask ourselves from what viewpoint we’re attempting to answer the question. My critique of ‘the necessary God’ has therefore very little to do with God, rather it’s directed against them who believe in such a God because they are answering the question from an idolatrous perspective. For that reason I wrote:
The critique is thus that those who profess faith in ‘the necessary God’ (consciously or unconsciously) presuppose that ‘man is the measure of all things’ – including God. Hence I’m not discussing whether ‘all things were created through him and for him’ or if ‘he upholds the universe by the word of his power’, etc., I’m asking from what perspective we can even begin to think about such questions. I therefore said:
This brief comment can obviously be discussed at further length but although it doesn’t explain in full what I believe, it’s still a good indication in regards to what direction my argument is heading. Keep reading the blog and you’ll understand better what I mean. I hope I have made myself clear. Thanks for the comment and God bless!