THE "GOD" PUZZLE

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO BRIAN DAVIES' "THE CONCEPT OF GOD" CHAPTER IN HIS BOOK, INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.

The idea of God and the truth of his existence have puzzled man throughout time. Philosophers then and now have tried to comprehend who (if there is) is this God who has caused man to search and understand his reality and wonder at his existence. They attempted to know and somehow define God and the concept at which he exists.

In this chapter, we saw two approaches in understanding the concept of God: the view of Classical Theism which could very well be summarized in the statement that God is not a person. On the other hand, the idea of the second approach called Theistic Personalism discounts that thought and firmly believes that God is a person.

Classical Theism insists that all of creation is dependent upon God who is not just its Creator but its Sustainer as well. The point of God being the Creator of everything is only right to be followed by the premise, that as the Creator, he ought to be its Sustainer and no one else. A Creator God cannot create and somehow leave his creation for that would lead to the idea of deism. God’s involvement in the creative process is as real as that in sustaining it. However, the big contrast of this to Theistic Personalism is the idea that God is not a person. The latter requires God to be a person though incorporeal at that.

These two approaches somehow can make us ponder at the characteristic of God. If God is not a person, as what Classical Theism insists, then, he cannot be a personal God; if he is not a personal God, then it would lead us to conclude that God cares less of his creation now than when he created everything, and; that he couldn’t be a ‘he’ but an ‘it’. This line of thought is absurd as I see it. I concur to the notion presented by Theistic Personalism on this part. God can be a person even without a body. He, being an incorporeal person is what makes him ‘distinct’ from his creation. Truly, he has some characteristics just like as but he can never be like us. Anthropomorphism, as what we call the ideas of God having those human-like characteristics (i.e. he loves, cares, sees), makes us in one way or another understand God but not fully. In fact, it is somehow difficult to fully cling to this concept since it makes man to think that God is ‘just a person’ like us. We then have to be very careful at explaining the idea of anthropomorphism for even though it gives us an idea to somehow understand God, the language of man still falls short at describing the actions of the divine toward his entire creation.

Davies’ definition of God also categorically denies the basic truths of biblical Christianity as to who the Creator God is and somehow of Judaism and Islam. The ‘God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity’ as a basic definition of God is somehow vague and cannot therefore be acceptable for Christianity. If we are going to make Jesus Christ as the historical point of reference in order to understand the concept of God[1], the definition given by Davies will somehow be chaotic because Christianity, Judaism and Islam differently see who Jesus is. Though they believe in his historicity, they have their own differing views about who the historical Christ is, and this would really be muddled if we are to force this idea of the author.

The Muslim God as I see can never very well fit into the context of the Christian God, not because they somehow call ‘God’ as Allah, but because Jesus (as the historical point of reference to our understanding of who God is) is rejected as ‘God’ in the Muslim world. In this line of thought, I could not be in agreement with the author. On the other hand, Judaism downplays the Messianic work of Christ which Christianity firmly believes. Considering all these concepts of these three religions, it is somehow difficult to agree on the definition of God given here by Davies.

The concept of God will always make man wonder. However, what matters most is that somehow, God has allowed us to see a glimpse of who he is by the revelation of Jesus and from the Scriptures. We may use everything in our power and describe him for all that we can know about him but it would still fail to comprehend who God is and what he is like. Believing that there is a Creator God, One who is living, and supreme over all, is indeed enough as I see to describe the God whom we believe. However, defining God would be impossible for if man is able to define him, then he ceases to be God.

As a theist myself, I have conceded to the notion that it is indeed impossible to define or even understand God. However, not having a clear grasp of who and what he is will neither make me a skeptic nor a pessimist at the thought of his existence. Being unable to define or give a clear cut description of what God is, is to humbly admit that we as creation of the Creator are finite to the Infinite. So then, we could only be settled to the revelation of himself to us and be content in the truth that he exists.