So I am arguing for Relationality - it’s a word I made up based on what I observe. And the question I ask is this:
What then are the options of ultimate reality and original state that are presented to my reason? I see four options:
There are Religious options that explain, or attempt to explain ultimate cause and ultimate effect. “God is smiling at us,” they are made to say, “it would be polite to smile back, at the very least“.
Not one of them explain it adequately, I think simply because religion was never meant to be a worldview. Religion is reactive, it is a reaction of my Faith. I care for widows, orphans and family members because of my Faith (James 1:27, 1 Tim 5:4). These actions do not explain my religion, they are my religion, these actions explain my Faith.
I once had this response from an atheist on the role of a cleric, “To help people cope with suffering and to celebrate life’s milestones is a noble undertaking. I respect their work even though I find the narrative underlying it without foundation.”
He explains the problem well; it’s the foundation of Faith which is in question, not the actions of the religion.
If one forces one’s religion to explain cause and effect in an ultimate sense we end up with a narrative very difficult to believe on it’s own. But many believe such narratives, none the less. But we don’t find an adequate religious answer to ultimate cause and effect questions.
Then there is the option that there is no ultimate reality just as there was no original state. “God is not smiling at us simply because God is not…” they say, “none the less we ought to smile or at least be kind to eachother and preserve our resources for future generations we will never meet.” (why we should do this, they cannot say.
Richard Dawkins is unsatisfied with simply supposing a God to answer the atheist simply supposing nothing (In reality though it’s the other way round; it is actually the atheist who is simply supposing nothing to answer the theist simply supposing God. Each conclusion is equally limited despite Dawkins assertion - for some reason he has yet to explain - that simply supposing nothing is a better position to hold). I am unsatisfied with both.
St Anselm in the ninth century presented the ontological argument against which there has yet to be a satisfactory reply (some are satisfied with Kant’s answer - I am not). I find these conclusions: that of the Buddhist philosophies, and the secular atheist ones, and Kant’s view of ontology; impossible to reconcile with what I observe.
Thirdly there are the options of Faith, which, as I explained to JrodN, is a relational component - not a religious one. And these are mostly proved to be in dire error.
Most relationships of human groups with ‘gods’ are based on a trade. We give praise and honour and sacrifice to this local god and he, if he can or feels up to it, invokes blessing, protection, provision and long life on the human group.
“God is your client,” they say, “and the client is always right… you’d better smile at him, even if he frowns at you.”
Now any scientific study will show you that it just does not work.
No single group has it better than any other, not in a way that we could ascribe it directly to their Faith, or so it seems.
There is also a huge and obvious hole in almost every Faith option. The relational component is either flawed or it is missing precisely where it must be shown: If a god existed originally but existed alone, how could he have been relational? If he was not relational then he was missing the major attribute right at the beginning and therefore how could he be God?
But Faith is, at least, a relationship as opposed to a religion and it is broader in it vocabulary than the naturalisms of the Atheist and the Buddhist, so we would need to examine these Faith options further to see if any of them negates the ‘trade’ lie of ‘blessings in exchange for praise’ as well as the unrelational origin of God.
Lastly there is the Relativist option which attempt to answer that the options all contain elements of truth and they all lead to truth anyway. “God is smiling very broadly,” they say, “and he will accept even a grunt as a positive reply.”
This option presents God as a cosmic Santa Claus, threatening coal but without the heart (and therefore without the Justice) to deliver it. And God without justice is not God.
There is not much to say about this except that it could not possibly be.
We do not treat truth this way in every day life, why would we want to treat it this way ultimately?
No teacher marks every learners answer right because it contains elements of truth or because it’s written in ink. We all know from life that small errors lead to bad mistakes and wrong destinations. Surely this is the case ultimately also.
CS Lewis put it quite nicely, “let us stop wishful thinking and start thoughtful wishing.”
So there we have it. Four options to give a relational explanation of cause and effect:
1. Religion - nice try but wrong. There is no answer here.
2. Nothingness - In either of the two extremes. There is no answer their either.
3. Faith - there may be an answer here. It is at least relational.
4. Relativism - There is no hope of an answer here.
