I wrote the below blog in response to a thoughtful piece by Roger Ebert (yes, the movie critic) on his blog regarding how he conceives of God.  The comments ijn response to his blog were, for the most part, quite thoughtful and intriguing.  I found it stimulating, though I was troubled by the atheistic bent of many comments.  That said, the below encapsulated my own, often conflicting and complex feelings about God and Christianity and the necessity of faith.


God, the universe, knowledge, truth, these are all very difficult things to wrap oneself around. I believe there is a "Truth" with the capital "T", yet the more one reads philosophy and engages with the great minds of the past and present, the more one realizes they simply cannot know what that "Truth" is through intellectual understanding. The "Truth" is simply too large and man's mind too finite to be able to stand at a point far enough above and beyond to have the necessary total vision that would allow one to say they see the completeness of "Truth."

Socrates was wise in a most fundamental way because he acknowledged that he did not really know. His skill was in forcing others to realize that they too, irrespective of their seeming assurances to the contrary, do not really know.

Does God exist? I am a firm believer in an uncaused cause. I suppose this is Aristotelian and in Catholic terms, the view of Aquinas. Our linearly inclined minds simply are unable to conceive of something that exists outside that which has a beginning and an end, an Alpha and an Omega.

Whether that God is the God of monotheism and the Judeo-Christian tradition is a question I do not feel answerable via the intellect. As other posters have made clear here, there must be an "experience" that draws one to these conclusions.

That said, I do believe atheism is every bit as arrogant and unyielding in its own way as the narrowest religion has ever been. To be an atheist is to be certain of an absence of God. That may be a label, but if it fits, it is folly to pretend it to be something other than what it is.

I also believe secular humanism is a disease that will not save mankind. I do not believe it will lead to a utopia at the end of the rainbow where man will feel infinite love for his neighbors not just next door but in the continent over the ocean. Secular humanism does not have an external reference point for morality. At best, ethics under purely secularized humanism is little more than utilitarianism when all the pious pontifications are stripped away.

God is necessary, because only God gives such a reference point. It allows a true morality that is not a cover for that which has been (and remains) animalistic about man.

Whether "God" actually exists in the realm of "Truth" with a capital "T" then becomes of secondary if not tertiary importance. Man needs God to survive here and now in a world and universe that is only barely grasped in multifaceted manifestations.

Faith is like stepping off a cliff and is truly a Kierkeggardian Leap. Yet that leap is all that will ultimately allow man to find salvation here now; just as much as salvation in the netherworld of unfathomed infinity.

There may be a whiff of utilitarianism in this line of argument, but man is a utilitarian entity and must seek out that which is most beneficial. Where does one go if not to that which is beneficial?

Man, contrary to Nietzsche and his desire for the transvaluation of values, is not really able to create a morality out of whole cloth. Thus utility becomes necessity. The “Ubermensch” finds that the will to power leads back to a possibly even more primordial need than that for power- the desire for eternity.

Nothing gives eternity but faith, faith in history, faith in memory, faith in that that bestows life itself.