Thursday, 10 July 2008
-
O Taste and See: Chocolate and the Existence of God
by mr willow
I have a friend who has no sense of taste. I don’t mean that she’s un-cultured; in fact, her preferences in art and music are quite sophisticated. I mean that when she puts food in her mouth, she doesn’t taste a thing. It’s not a terribly disabling handicap, as handicaps go; she still gets all the nutrition she needs and leads a perfectly healthy and active life. It’s just that, to her, there’s no real difference between eating wedding cake and eating tofu.So here’s the question: How would you go about describing to this person exactly how chocolate tastes?
You could write something, maybe a descriptive sensuous sort of poem, or maybe a detailed technical analysis of how the chemicals in chocolate interact with the pleasure centers of the brain. Maybe if you’re musically inclined you could write a tune that depicts what it feels like to eat chocolate. (J. S. Bach once wrote a hilarious “Coffee Cantata,” so this is actually not too farfetched.) You could copy those splendid sequences from the film Ratatouille where a surrealistic montage of color represents Remy’s emotional response to the flavors of food. You’d probably come closest by letting her smell a Hershey's bar, but even that just isn’t the same as tasting it.
Logically, there are two choices this person could come to: 1) There is nothing there, and you are creating your own delusional alternate reality, or 2) There is something there, but she lacks the proper capacity to perceive it.
Hopefully, she'd eventually go with the second. We all know that our senses can be limited. Even when our senses are perfectly healthy and functional, they’re still surprisingly narrow. We all know about light that is “beyond the visible spectrum”, or the famous “whistle only dogs can hear.” There are even some animals that have senses we know nothing about. We know of eels that can locate other objects by their electrical field, birds and fish that can navigate the world with their own internal GPS. It’s perfectly natural, even though it seems to us like a superpower.
I think this is where many of our discussions on “the existence of God” miss the mark. “Where’s the evidence that God exists?” an atheist or skeptic will ask. Or, almost as common, “I would believe that God exists if I saw such-and-such, but I believe that is impossible.” Christians then try to answer them on their own terms, and are often left fumbling for a good way to reply.
For instance, I had a dialogue with an outspoken atheist a while back in which he said he would not believe in God unless God could tell him the exact number of check marks in a certain book on his shelf. Presumably an omniscient God would indeed be capable of doing that if He wanted, but what if (I asked) God exists but simply has no interest in playing pick-a-number? (He didn’t take that very well.)
It’s not that philosophy, or science, or the world around us offer evidence against the reality of God; I think there are plausible arguments to be made from any of them. In the same way, you could argue to a deaf person that music exists because they can see that all those people with violins have to be doing something. But that’s not the best way to make the point. There’s a lot more than the visual presentation that goes into making music.So if our senses are insufficient, what’s the best way to find the reality of God? A great saint, martyr, and devoutly spiritual man once wrote this (read it carefully):
“But, as it is written,
‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him’––these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. — I Corinthians 2:9-10 ESV
There’s so much in there that to examine it all would take a great deal of space. But his main points are simple: You can’t see, hear, or even imagine what God is like on your own, but God reveals this to us by means of the Holy Spirit. (The “Holy Spirit” of course is God Himself, the third Person of the Trinity.) Just like your own spirit best knows what is deepest within you, when you “receive the Holy Spirit,” you will understand who God is and what He is willing to do for you.
What if you reject the Holy Spirit? Well then, you’re like a person wearing ear plugs at a concert, a person with a blindfold at an art gallery, or my friend with no taste at a gourmet dinner. You have no real way of perceiving what it’s all about. It’s not that there’s no evidence for it; it’s that you’ve closed yourself off to the evidence, so no wonder you can’t see it.
When we debate about God’s existence, far too often we are trying to settle a spiritual question on natural terms. Surely that must suffer the same shortcomings as trying to describe a flavor in literary terms. Oh, maybe it can be done. Maybe it can even be done well. But it can never be as good as letting that chocolate melt in your mouth. Maybe that’s why the psalmist said,
Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!
Blessed is the man who trusts in him!
- Psalm 34:8
-
recommend
- recs 7
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (24)
Wow. Beautifully said.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, it seems many professing Christians haven't let the chocolate melt in their mouth, so-to-speak. Which means...well, many of us don't know God as well as we think we do.
amen! people forget that God doesn't force Himself on anyone, He'll chase after us, he'll try to draw us close to him through circumstances and people, he'll reveal his will through godly people, his word and directly from his Spirit but we will only know and see as much as we are willing to know and see. we've being given the will power to chose which leaves us to some extent the responsibility of drawing close to God, "Come near to God and he will come near to you. Make your hands clean, you evil-doers; put away deceit from your hearts, you false in mind" - James 4:8, because God could write on each and every person's wall, "i am GOD, i exist" it would still be up to the person to believe, still up to the person to chose to follow him so sometimes i wonder if the lack of faith people have in God is because they truly have not seen any evidence whatsoever of a higher existance and calling in their lives, and in this world, and in the lives of those around them or because it is easier to not believe so they can do whatever they want and only have to answer to themselves? have you never seen, heard or experienced mercy (not getting the bad you deserve) and grace (getting the good you didn't deserve) in your situations and in the lives of people that your science books and philosophies will never be able to explain away?...wow, i think there is more than enough evidence of God even if you haven't recieved the Holy Spirit.
Very well-said :)
So well said :)
verrry nice. :)
I shall save this
you're confusing something as simple as removing a pair earplugs or a blindfold with a disorder of sensory perception. i think things are a tad different.
you have a point when you say that it'd be extremely difficult to explain the qualities of taste to someone who's never had the capacity to experience such a gift. however, that doesn't really offer a case for or against god does it? at best, it just makes it a simple case of "i don't know."
the fact of the matter is that, at the core of it all, none of us really know. therefore, it doesn't make sense that anybody-- christian or atheist--should impose their worldviews on one another or at least in the context of a personal worldview.
the last thing i'd like to address concerns that episode with your friend's book with the checkmarks in it. if god was disinterested in performing such a simple task, that would imply that he was disinterested in that individual's salvation. that's not a characteristic of a benevolent, all-loving god is it?? i can't be sure that that's how your friend framed the issue, but i have confidence (as opposed to blind faith) that that is how he looked at it.
My husband wants a cow to fall from the sky... literally
This is a really wonderful post
I am going to ask him to read it
x
Your blogs are both inspiring and refreshing. I love your way of writing and have been sharing your wisdom/experience with others. Thanks for the great motivation this week.
Deborah
@easalien@xanga - In my original post there was a sentence (Revelife edited me a bit for space) that might make my meaning clearer:
"The dilemma, of course, is that he was demanding a natural proof for the existence of a spiritual being: it's as though somebody asked you to prove the existence of a Beethoven symphony in a way that wouldn't involve the sense of hearing."
If God doesn't answer the check-mark question, it could mean He doesn't exist, but it could also mean He exists but doesn't see a need to answer-- perhaps because there's already so much other evidence without frivolous number games!
Ironically, God (according to Christian belief) is so concerned about this individual's salvation that He came to earth and died in his place, an event for which there's a whole lot of evidence indeed.
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - i believe i understand where you're coming from. don't get me wrong. your argument isn't fanciful or illogical. i just think that it's ultimately empty.
as a former christian, i can detect echoes of my own past reasoning (which was unquestionably weak and misguided at the time). you say that there is so much other evidence for god's existence, but you haven't really told me what that evidence is or where that evidence comes from. my guess is that this evidence lies in the mix of ideas concerning the world's immense complexity as well as personal revelation. however, since i'm not you, i don't want to misconstrue your position so you're just going to have to tell me.
i really don't question whether or not jesus actually existed. i believe he did, and the fact that scholars are still debating it doesn't really affect me much. however, again, what is your evidence for his divinity? if it's in any of the extrabiblical sources often cited e.g. pliny the younger, cornelius, etc., i think it must be mentioned that none of these men met jesus or even occupied the same contemporary timeframe (you'll have to correct me if i'm wrong). the champion of christ's resurrection was paul, who ironically never even "met" jesus prior to the crucifixion. i find all of that very strange and unconvincing.
the fact is that much of our modern understanding indicates that christ was never divine, not the other way around.
lastly, on the issue of beethoven's symphony, proof of said symphony need not rely on the sound alone. granted, the beauty of such a work may be lost on the person without their hearing, but the fact that we have both the original manuscript and multiple copies of it would attest to that symphony's existence in objective reality, regardless of that individual's incapacity to hear it.
@easalien@xanga - I don't think he's trying to provide evidence. This is what I get from him: We can't really prove God exists, seriously, we have no physical evidence of God as the divine. no photos, no fingerprints, nothing (that we know of today, anyway). But God reveals Himself to us, and He has to be the one who ultimately convinces people of His existence no matter how hard we try to convey why we believe He IS. @Pass_the_Aura@xanga - right, or on the right track?
@easalien@xanga - First of all you have my compliments; you're the most courteous atheist I've had the pleasure of conversing with online.
As a composer I think that only the music itself (i.e. the sounds) can correctly be called Beethoven's symphony. All the other things--the score, the autograph, the actions of the musicians, the CD cover, the decibel level meters, whatever--are artifacts of the existence of the symphony. Their existence is certainly telling, but one doesn't need to depend on them to believe (or even to prove) that the sound is real. Contrariwise, without a sense of hearing, even if you see all the artifacts you have no way of knowing what they're really for.
Now even just listing the artifacts of Jesus' deity (which I think is what most people are after when they are looking for "evidence") could easily fill a book (and has done for several). Take it as a hypothetical: If a God of love came to earth incognito as a man in order to die for our sins, probably X would happen. Any X you can think of is precisely what we do find in the contemporary accounts of Jesus (NT Gospels and Epistles), and in the effects of His having been here.
Another thing to consider: if people were making up a legend or myth about Jesus' deity, would it read anything at all like the four Gospels? Stylistically, they're nothing like any myth or fantasy. Compare them with the mysticism of the later "Gnostic Gospels." The main theological problem with these is the opposite of the one you mention, by the way: Jesus is considered so divine that He couldn't possibly have been human!
Still, if Jesus really is God, then the best possible way to settle the question will not be in looking for artifacts but in going to the source. In John's Gospel, Jesus says, "If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether [my] teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority" (Jn 7:17). Seems like a pretty simple test....
@all_usernames_have_been_taken - On the right track. I'd prefer to say that we can prove it if we focus on the spiritual proof rather than arbitrarily insisting on the physical. God is Spirit, after all, and though He can and does affect the world around us, presumably the most relevant evidence will be in spiritual things, e.g. transforming people's lives.
@all_usernames_have_been_taken - you're right. i realize that none of this was probably intended to be a comprehensive logical argument. the truth is that, even though i may be proud of my logical worldview, i know there are things i/we will never fully understand, issues concerning beauty and the like. however, if what you say is true, and personal revelation is really the only way to know god, then what is the point of evangelism? why proselytize and impress your particular worldview on others?
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - i humbly thank you for the compliments. i have to admit that i still have a tendency to fall into that belligerent and combative tone. it's something i still need to work on, but i'll get it eventually. similarly, i find you one of the more civil and intelligent christians i've conversed with.
in response to the issues you brought up, i again have to ask for specific examples. for example, what should i expect if god had come incognito to save mankind from sin (what is this X)? and what books provide this evidence you speak of?
personally--and i hope you don't find this offensive--i find the bible is an exhausting read. i never really enjoyed reading it, even when i was a christian (maybe that made me a bad christian). with that said, i don't hold other religious scripture in any higher esteem. i find them all exhausting. so the fact that the bible is not written in the stylized manner of myth and fiction doesn't really sway me.
you're right when you say we need to go back to the source. however, i have gone back, and the only thing i found was a profound moral and intellectual confusion. i would take up the gauntlet you've thrown, except for two things:
1.) how would i know what god's will is?
2.) how would i carry it out?
i honestly hope this doesn't resolve itself into an issue of personal revelation because that would only lead me back to where i started.
@easalien@xanga - You're welcome, and thank you. Gosh, for disagreeing in debate we're becoming a regular mutual admiration society!
I certainly don't find it offensive. I'd actually be inclined to agree if by "exhausting" you mean "requiring a lot of mental effort." It does take work. Did you ever try starting with a simpler modern translation?
I was thinking mainly of generalities for "X"-- e.g. He would be strongly disliked by some religious-establishment types, he might perform miracles, he would want at least partly to keep his "true identity" a secret, he would have a profound effect on people's lives, his teaching would be noted for its depth and moral clarity, his life would have an enduring impact. I think the last two at least are undeniable.
J. B. Phillips goes on at some length on these lines in his little book Your God is Too Small. If you're interested more in the academic / historical side of things, McDowell and Wilson's He Walked Among Us comes to mind (might be out of print but can be found used online). Among more recent academic works, one good selection is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham. Of course there's a veritable library written on the subject but those are a few I like.
At risk of sounding circular, your questions could answer themselves like this: If Jesus is God, then Jesus' will is God's will. So in that case one would make the effort to understand and live by Jesus' teachings, and if this is all true, the knowledge Jesus mentions would follow. (Note, I think it's quite possible to distinguish "Jesus' teachings" from the stuff one often gets in church. "Going to the source" again.)
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - it's the way debate should be yeah? again, thanks for putting in the time to address all of this.
when i wrote "exhausting," i meant something closer to "tedious" or "boring." you're completely right when you say that it doesn't read like myth. it reads like a history book, and sadly, history books always put me to sleep.
the two generalities i agree with, for the most part. i cannot doubt the enormous influence jesus has over our modern culture. i believe over 70% of americans are born-again christians. i also find most of jesus' teaching to be rather clear in their intent. there are always those passages that seem out of sync with his larger message, like luke 19:27 (slay them before me), but for the most part, i think jesus is somebody whose character we should aspire to emulate. however, i think some of the more vocal christians forget some of the tenets of christ's message e.g. love your brother and turn the other cheek. i find it strange that there is a campaign against homosexuality that relies on passages not even attributed to christ.
if we are to agree that our considerations for deification rest on a clear moral teaching and profound effect on lives, i think there are also a great many people we can lump into the same category e.g. martin luther king, jr.; cesar chavez; many other unsung heroes working to make the world better.
i read through phillips' book, and while i have to agree with much of what he says, i think he commits the very error he proposes to eliminate. if god is so much larger than any of our conceptions, what makes us believe that we are entitled to say "my god is the right one on account of my own personal experience as well as the fact that my holy book testifies to such." i'm sure that argument is the same not only for some christians, but also some jews, muslims, buddhists, etc. again, i find it all rather circular. i still have to read bockham's and mcdowell's books though, and i hope i can get to them soon.
what is faith? it's believing in that which you have no empirical evidence of existence. what is hope? it is a wish against all odds. what is trust? it is an evidence of faith. what is love? total acceptance without question.
these are the fundamentals of God's existence in this stupid world... that and the bible too... i can't prove to them of God's existence unless He wanted to show Himself. but if you want real proof, seek it in the people who work in His name. For they are the body of Christ in this time and in this place. See the miracles and the wonder they perform in His name... that is solid proof.
I've never thought about it that way. Very well written and explained!
@easalien@xanga - Sorry for the delay in responding. Life and things got in my way. It is fun to have a cordial dialogue for a change, instead of the sniping one usually gets online.
Of course I agree there are many good moral teachers with good impact besides Jesus (though do I think Jesus scores more points on that count than many others). I think there's much more than that that commends His claim to deity, however-- for one thing, the claim itself, which a great moral teacher is the least likely sort of person to make.
I certainly agree with you (again!) on the unfortunate discrepancy between what certain Christians do and what Christ said. That's been a major sore point in my own life. However, I find it very interesting that this is precisely what Jesus said would happen, according to the "parable of the wheat and tares" (Matthew 13:24-43). (A "tare" being a weed that looks similar to wheat.) Ironically, the argument against Christianity (the hypocrisy of many self-styled Christians) can also be a strong argument for Christianity (Jesus correctly prophesied that many self-styled Christians would be hypocrites), though certainly a rather embarrassing one for us believers!
One thing I've observed about the Bible-- people's attitude toward it tends to generally reflect their attitude toward God. I may need to write a longer post about this because you've started some trains of thought going in my mind. However, I suspect some of the boredom may come from missing the "big picture" that pervades the whole book-- kind of like reading Hamlet as though it were a description of the details of royal family relationships in medieval Denmark. That certainly comes into it, but there's something bigger going on.
If I might recommend another book (this is a weakness of mine), I think you might really enjoy G. K. Chesterton's classic The Everlasting Man. He has (among other very enjoyable parts) a section on Christ that expresses what I've been trying to get at, only much more amusingly written.
Best regards and happy reading!
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - thank you for the recommendations. for a while, i actually forgot what exactly we were arguing about considering our ideas tend to compliment each other.
let me know when you complete this post of yours. i'm rather interested in hearing what you have to say.
take care
p.s. i liked hamlet
Thanks for sharing this! I especially like how you said that this was trying to answer a spiritual question with natural means. Going point! I'm sure that'll help me handle similar questions in the future!
Take care, and God bless.