I have experiences. Something is causing those experiences.
It is that something that I refer to by the name ‘God’.
The key difference between myself and atheists is what label we put in that ‘something’ box - not whether it exists. It’s silly to argue over the name you call a thing. What matters more - the crux between theism and atheism - is the structure of the causal graph emanating from a thing, and the values associated with the different nodes on that causal graph.
Sure, there are lots of things in that something box. But the way you work with computer programs - and we can think of that whole box as a computer program - is that you refer to the program itself. If someone shows you the source code and asks ‘where is the program in here’, there’s not a great answer. The whole thing is the program. It’s in all of the parts, but it’s not any one of them in particular. You have to say something like, “the program is the totality of all of the relationships expressed in here.” This is what I mean by ‘God’ - the root of this whole causal structure, the thing that gives rise to and contains the whole mechanism that produces my perspective.
That there is no God absolutely makes sense if you first apply a bunch of specific properties to God - i.e. omniscience, benevolence, etc - and then say, “there is no object with all of those properties.” Sure! That’s a fine stance. But when you start with the premise that God is a name for the root cause of all experiences, then nonexistence becomes untenable.
Am I saying atheism is totally invalid? No, definitely not. I don’t want to persuade or convert anyone. I want only to shed light on the disagreement so that the two groups can better understand one another. Frequently, I see members of each group dismissing the other, completely. They just can’t understand one another. I think this results from confusion about the the difference between theism and atheism. We aren’t arguing over the existence of a root cause, but over its properties.
Sure, I, and other theists, believe the Source has some properties - intelligence and benevolence - that nonbelievers do not believe the Source has. Yet atheists still believe in a source of their experiences, and they believe this source follows a consistent, unchanging pattern always and everywhere. They call this pattern the laws of physics. I call it that too, but the difference is, I think the laws of physics are a flow of love into the cosmos.
But to get there, for that perspective to make any sense - because I agree that it probably sounds insane to most atheists - we have to talk about the nature of my relationship with that source. It’s a relationship similar to the one described by most theists. The reason I now have the beliefs I do is because of the evidence in my own life that’s come about as a result of intentionally practicing a certain kind of relationship with that source.
My Relationship with The Root of Causality
Today, I both worship and fear this thing causing my experiences. I think it wants something both from me, and for me: my own full development and happiness. I strive to obey this thing - doing what I think it wants - because I think it understands what will bring me sustained happiness better than I do.
As a result of attempting to obey and see what happens, my life has gotten better. My family gets along better. My relationships with my wife and children are definitely improved. We are more patient with each other, and ourselves. As a result of these benefits, I feel loved and cared for by this thing. I call it God. I think of it as a Him, for two reasons.
because that lines up with the historical tradition that I’ve learned and benefited the most from
but also - more importantly - because I’ve seen the difference in how I love my kids, vs. how my wife loves them.
I’ve noticed how I am much more willing to let my kids suffer, cry, get hurt, and scared, in order that they might grow to learn how to navigate the world on their own. I tell them that even though it’s had for me, I’m OK to let them cry and be angry now, if I think that, over the broad trajectory of their life, they will be happier. I want them to have a happy life, not just a happy childhood.
I tell them I’m sorry they are hurting, but I know they are strong enough to handle it. That’s the voice I want them to hear when they’re an adult and struggling: you can do endure this.
This experience lines up with my relationship with the root source of all my experiences: sometimes, I think, “Why do I have to deal with this?” When I think this way, though, I immediately see how my kids do the same thing when I ask them to clear their plates after dinner. Or, they did, until it became an ingrained habit. “I want you to be able to take good care of yourselves,” didn’t really make sense to them until after they got used to the idea that clearing your plate from the table isn’t some horrendous offense against justice - it’s an act of love, for your family, your environment, and - ultimately - yourself.
Whenever I feel like I’m suffering some unreasonably difficult situation, I remind myself that often the things I’ve suffered from helped me grow the most. I like having grown. I can also see how much growth I’ve got left to do, and can appreciate that suffering is instrumental to that, because it places my own limitations at the fore of my attention. If not for the practice of faith, my own tendency for self deception and delusion would be squirreled away in the back of my mind somewhere along with other stuff I learned in school and then forgot, like, “the mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell.” Suffering puts my own foolishness right up in front for me to examine and go, huh, well I guess I did play some role in creating this situation.
There’s never been a single difficult situation I’ve encountered that I couldn’t find some way in which my own ignorance or impatience or entitlement played zero role in making it worse.
When I can muster up the will to say, “thank you God for this opportunity to suffer, I know you are helping me grow even though I don’t know how or why” - a difficult situation feels slightly better. I stop judging the situation as wrong. I stop judging myself for not being perfect. I know I’ll be OK. I know He loves me. As a result of doing this, I feel much more trust in life itself, much less worry, and more peace.
So that’s the nature of my relationship with God. I conceptualize it as ‘the root cause of my experiences’ and I interact with it the way I think it would be ideal for my kids to interact with me: as knowing more than them and caring for them deeply.
I didn’t start out this way - when my wife and I got married, she wanted to do so in a church, but I refused. No way. If there were a God, he was a monster. Better to believe the world is a kind of random accident that just sort of happened, and - due to evolution- had produced self aware beings who were collectively steering the once hellish cosmos towards a better future. That, I could handle.
The thing is, that view tended to leave me constantly stressed out about what was coming in the future, and how to handle the many problems that seemed to keep growing around me. I felt that I had to do it all on my own.
I understood that if I were religious, if I really did believe that an all-powerful God loved me - well, that would make things a lot easier. But I couldn’t believe it just because I wanted to. I needed evidence, because that’s how our brains work. So, I figured, I had to do some experiments in order to gather the evidence necessary to make faith possible.
You might object: this has nothing to do with traditional religion. It’s an excellent objection. I think there are good reasons to believe it does.
This Perspective Matches Multiple Wisdom Traditions
Yes, I’m describing something totally different from an invisible sky-person who sometimes - but only when no one is looking! - violates the laws of physics to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. But he only does this sometimes - precisely when the cameras are off. For the most part just kind of watches us mutilate and kill each other until after we die. Then, after we die, he rewards us according to a secret reward schedule that he saw fit to transmit only once, or maybe a few times, long ago, before anyone could have recorded it with computers and a way evidence-based adults could actually accept. But also, the secret reward schedule included rules like ‘throw rocks at women who commit adultery’, some of which are invalid but others of which are still valid, for reasons that can only be explained by qualified experts who all argue with each other all the time, and whose main qualification seems to be this ability to dodge hard questions.
I get it! You’re right that I’m telling a very different story than the ones you’ve heard. You’re not wrong.
You might accuse me, then, of having totally redefined “God” in a way that’s alien to the traditions I’m claiming to represent. My answer would be, first, I’m sorry for the experiences you had and the ways you were mistreated by people who hurt you in the name of a loving God. You deserved better than that.
Secondly:
I have talked with persons of multiple major religions about this, and they’ve all agreed with my characterization of God. I’ve never had a religious person reject this description in a one on one conversation - regardless of their faith tradition.
In the Hebrew tradition, God reveals himself with the name “I AM WHO AM” - which, to me, means “I am being itself.” In the Christian Tradition, Jesus Identifies as “the Truth, the Way, the Life.” Hindus explicitly talk about “union with the universe”. Sikhs talk about a Single creator being, free from hatred and fear, whose name is Truth. Buddhists talk about sitting in mindful attention until the contents of awareness - i.e. the stream of experiences - drop away and you’re left with pure awareness, consciousness with no content.
Here are certified religious authorities of different faiths agreeing that there’s a shared core which is “ultimate reality.”
Of Course, some will disagree- but if the Pope, Rabbis, Imams, Buddhist, Hindu and Native American practitioners all agree on a shared core - to me, that agreement constitutes evidence of an external reality independently discovered by multiple cultures.
What’s being claimed - by multiple cultures throughout history - is that you’ll be happier and more content with life if you cultivate a specific kind of relationship with that source of your experience.
You might object: how can I have a relationship with something that I don’t think is conscious? It’s an excellent objection. I’ll get to that one next time.
Please Help Me Evolve This Explanation.
As always, readers, I could use your help. Please tell me where I’m wrong. What am I overstating? What am I missing? Are there objections I’ve not considered?
Thank you.
I started to respond in a comment, but it was getting lengthy. I'll publish a short post instead.
There cannot be evidence that this is anything outside of a quirk of subjective experience. That you feel better when you feel loved is not a statement about existence, it is a statement about perception.
It may be useful, it may apply to every human being, but it is not verifiable. I have an equally strong claim that following this guidance makes me miserable and you cannot confirm or deny my subjective experience.
Regardless of verifiable fact, subjective experience is worth improving. So let's do that. How do you know this is the best way to do that?
You have not tested any alternatives. What is your subjective experience when you believe that you are triumphing over an adversarial existence? That your previous life was a holy one and that this is heavenly reward? That life is a dance, no plan, lessons, or goal, only to be improvised and enjoyed? That emotions are unreliable yardsticks and that living up to an ideal provides a more reliable path to flourishing?
All of those are equally valid experiments and have common cultural supports and history. Why have you neglected them in favor of new age theism?