Reflections on the Faith of Reason and the Reason of Faith

BELIEF IN GOD     I. The Question of Belief If one even slightly pays attention to the conversations occurring all around, one will begin to notice the frequency of one particular question: “Do you believe in God?” Very often, those who do hold to some sort of belief in the divine generally assume that everyone else does as well. When they encounter someone who does not seem to share in their belief, they invariably ask the person the question about belief. On the surface it is a seemingly simple question. Yet there is an ambiguity in the question that is frequently ignored.   The ambiguity lies in the fact that this apparently simple question is, in reality, asking two different questions at the same time, both centered on the word “belief.” The first question of belief asks “Do you believe that God exists?” The second question of belief asks “Do you trust in God?” This second question, though often ignored, is in reality the more important of the two. This is because the question of existence being answered in the positive may appear to be the prerequisite for the question of trust; yet, the issue of trust determines whether one’s belief in God’s existence has any practical significance. The irony being that one can believe in God’s existence but not trust in that God, thus negating any significance of its existence.     II. The Question of Existence   Regarding the first question concerning God’s existence, one must simply answer “I don’t know.” This answer is the case even if one whole-heartedly believes in the existence of God beyond any shadow of doubt. It is the only truly honest, factual, and certain answer to the question of God’s existence. If those who whole-heartedly believe in God’s existence are pushed on the matter they must ultimately admit that they cannot prove that God exists but they simply believe that God exists. Therefore, what they are saying is “I don’t know, but I believe God exists.” This inability to prove God’s existence on the part of those who believe in God is due to the fact that God’s existence is not a matter of direct observation or objectively verifiable data. Frankly, no one has ever seen God in any tangible or objectively experiential manner, and even if someone did, they could not reproduce the experience for others. This is not to deny that people claim to have “felt” God moving in their lives and have even claimed to have “heard” God speak to them. Nevertheless, these individuals admit that the manner of “experience” and “speaking” was subjectively based rather than objectively verifiable. They can only claim that God spoke to them in their “hearts” or in their “minds” in a way that was audible solely to them. None of these people have ever produced a tape-recording with God’s voice on it, nor have they even been able to point to which chair God was sitting in those moments that they have “felt” God’s “presence.”    To these so-called “experiences” of God the question of reasonableness must be raised. Which is more reasonable, and therefore more likely, that God actually spoke to them and paid them a visit or that these individuals are mistaken? Their very own characterization of God makes the latter more likely. They present a picture in which God is the infinite creator and ruler of the universe. Is it then likely that this God who has an entire, infinitely expanding universe to run singled them out of everyone in the universe for a conversation? This seems to reflect a highly developed ego and an inflated sense of importance, but not necessarily an accurate portrayal of reality. If God were to visit every individual on this planet who is suffering or in need (not to mention all of the other individuals on all of the other planets that may exist in this infinite universe under God’s dominion), it seems that God would be far too busy making house calls, and would have no time to get on with the task of running the universe. To those, then, who claim to have experienced God in some manner, it can most reasonably be concluded that they are either lying about the experience or that they are self-deluded due to an array of subjective experiences and previously held presuppositions.   After one has concluded that one can neither be certain of God’s existence, one then must ask the question of evidence: “What reasonable evidence is there that supports or denies God’s existence?” This “reasonable evidence” is the evidence of objective experience. Is there anything outside myself that clearly points to the existence of God? Is there anything that I can point to that boldly declares either “yes” or “no” concerning God’s existence?     The Case for God. The first of the traditional proofs for God’s existence is quite possibly the oldest, dating at least as far back as Aristotle. This is the argument of the First Cause. This line of reasoning asserts that everything that exists is the product of a process of cause and effect. Everything that exists and everything that occurs is the result of some antecedent cause, which is the result of a preceding cause. If one could trace the line of cause and effect back through time and space, one would eventually arrive at the first cause that initiated the whole process of cause and effect. That first cause is said to be God. God is the first cause that put everything into motion; therefore, everything that exists is the result of God’s initial activity. Therefore, the fact of general existence proves God’s existence. Upon first reading this sounds like a very powerful proof for God’s existence, but after one begins to examine it more closely, one realizes that it is logically inconsistent. If one accepts that everything that exists is the product of an ongoing process of cause and effect, then one must eventually come to the conclusion that there can be no first cause because the so-called first cause must by definition have a cause that produced it. Every cause must itself have a cause; therefore, the first cause must be caused by something, thus demonstrating that it is not the first cause. One may trace the line of cause and effect back to God, but in order for God to become the first cause, one must make a decision to stop tracing the line of cause and effect back any further beyond God, for in order for God to exist God must have a cause. So this argument ultimately asks the question that those who assert God’s existence do not like to answer: “Who or what made God?” This line of reasoning does not deny the existence of God, it merely demonstrates that if God does exist, then God is suddenly a lot less God-like then is generally believed, for if God has a cause, can God be absolute? A second traditional proof for the existence of God is the argument of Intelligent Design. This argument attempts to take general experience into account in its case for God. It asserts that if one examines the environment of the planet, one discovers that the environment appears to be exactly suited for life. In fact, if environmental factors were changed even slightly, life would not be able to survive. Therefore, since the environment is so well-suited for sustaining and continuing life, there must be some intelligence behind the environment. That intelligence is God. God made the environment to support life. This argument, however, has the process backwards. The simple reason why the environment is so well-suited for the life that lives in it is because only those forms of life that are able to live in the environment survive and those which are not become extinct. It has been established by geologists that the environment of the planet has changed many times in its 5 billion years of existence. Plants and animals that were able to adapt to the changes survived; those that were unable to adapt were not able to survive. For instance, dinosaurs were the dominant form of life on the plant for hundreds of millions of years. Their dominance was the result being well-suited to their environment. Around 65 million years ago the environment changed and the dinosaurs were not able to adapt. They died out and were replaced by mammals. Therefore, it is not the case that the environment is so well-suited to life; it is that life is so well-suited to the environment. A perfect environment was not created by an intelligent being, who then deposited life into it. Rather, life is forever caught up in a process of adaptation or extinction in an ever changing environment. When the environment changes (and it will as it has so many times in the past) life will scramble to adapt or die. The advantage that human beings possess is that they are able to change their immediate environments to suit their comfort level, but even this skill will not help in a situation of cataclysmic environmental change. The historical record of the planet declares that everything becomes extinct sooner or later. A time will come when human beings are no longer suited for the environment and will become extinct. A third argument is that of nature is the prerequisite proof for God’s existence. Nature, after all, is “governed” by “laws.” Who imposed those laws upon nature and what compels nature to obey? The answer must be God. Those who espouse this believe will then invariably turn to the vastness of the universe as a proof of God’s infinite power. Yet, this proof already presupposes that God exists so that it is not a proof of God’s existence, but merely evidence of one’s pre-existing belief, which has been offered once the existence of God has already been decided. In addition to these attempts to prove God’s existence from experience and logic there are also arguments for God based upon morality. The most simple of these arguments asserts that if there were no God then human beings would have no understanding of right and wrong. The first challenge to this line of reasoning is that, once more, those offering the argument comprehended the process backwards. A person’s understanding of right and wrong are a product of societal norms and mores, not divine intervention. Quite frankly, behavior and ritual precede the moral or theological understanding or rationale to explain that behavior. Therefore, what is right is what has always been done; the myth or the rationale for the behavior comes after the behavior has become ingrained into the society. Secondly, why should an ancient code of morality be superior to a contemporary one? For instance, does the Bible offer a superior moral code? The morality of the Bible presents a God who demands the slaughter of women and children, and even animals, in times of war. It presents a morality in which women are the property of men. It presents a morality that advocates slavery. It presents a morality that suggests that a back-talking child should be killed. It presents a morality that demands that those who are ill be separated and shunned from society. Is biblical morality superior to a contemporary morality that asserts that men and women are equal; or that there should be boundaries placed upon children, but killing them for talking back is excessive; or that nobody is the property of anybody; or that those who are sick should receive compassion and not be shunned? Granted there are ethical expressions in the Bible that represent a healthy morality such as if your enemy’s donkey has collapsed under the burden of its load, you should help your enemy. Nevertheless, it seems clear that contemporary standards of morality are superior to those offered by the Bible and if God backs the morality of the Bible then God is morally suspect. If morality is to be a necessary component of society, then a morality that reflects the contemporary historical context should be the norm, rather than deciding that a primitive, ancient, and often brutal moral standard is to be the norm for all times and places. The simple truth is that there is no objective proof for or against God’s existence. God has not left fingerprints that can be lifted off of the so-called creation by discerning sleuths who seek to settle the matter. Nature and the universe only prove or deny God’s existence after the observer has already decided on the matter. So the answer to the question: “What reasonable evidence is there that supports or denies God’s existence?” is simply “Nothing.”     Choosing to Believe or Not to Believe. The simple fact is that one chooses to believe in or not to believe in God’s existence long before one ever offers evidence for or against God’s existence. Therefore, belief in the existence or non-existence of God is a matter of personal choice. So the answer to the question of God’s existence moves toward the directions of either “I don’t know, but I choose to believe God exists,” or “I don’t know, but I choose to believe God does not exist.” But then the question arises, “On what is that choice based?” The answer to this question is simply that it is based upon what the individual wants or desires. So the answer to the question of God’s existence is either, “I don’t know, but I want God to exist; therefore, I choose to believe in the God’s existence as fact,” or “I don’t know, but I don’t want God to exist, so I choose to believe in God’s non-existence as fact.” Therefore, all belief is choice. I choose for or against based upon my personal desires and convictions. Regardless of what I believe, whether it is in God’s existence, political affiliation, democracy, etc., it is simply because I have chosen to believe that way. What I choose to believe is based upon what I want to believe; and what I want to believe is ultimately based upon what is most convenient for me at the moment. I believe that the Democrats are better able to govern on behalf of the American people because it is most convenient for me to do so at the moment. A time may come when it is most convenient for me to make a different choice. My belief in God’s existence or non-existence is also a matter of convenience.    This does not demean anyone’s system of belief; on the contrary, it is what makes one’s belief system invaluable. It is solely our ability to choose that makes us human. If one loses one’s ability to choose, then one loses one’s humanity. Therefore, I must honor the choices that others make in order to honor their humanity. If I force someone to believe in God’s existence, I negate her humanity in my mind; and therefore, I make it okay not only to dismiss her opinion, but also her existence.   It is tragic what those who have chosen to believe in the existence of God, as a matter of convenience, have done (and still do) to those who have chosen not to believe in God’s existence as a matter of convenience. The slaughter of so-called pagans, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials only occurred because those who performed such deeds denied the humanity of those who chose to think differently. It is a sin to murder, but murder only applies to human beings. So if we can find the theological or philosophical justification to kill human beings, we have found the theological and philosophical voice to express their underlying status as non-human. This is compounded by the fact that those who choose to believe in God as a matter of convenience not only commit atrocities against those who choose not believe in God, but also against those who choose to believe in God differently. The Christians who fought the Crusades denied the choice that the Moslems made concerning God. The Crusaders killed Moslems simply because they were not human; and they were not human because of their theological choice. The attacks of September 11 were carried out by people who deny that others have the choice of how to understand their own God, thus denying their humanity. Those who carried out the attacks viewed the victims of those attacks as non-human. That is the only way one can ever convince oneself that terrorism and violence are legitimate expressions of faith. Crusaders, Islamic extremists, anyone who is willing to employ violence for their belief can only do so after they decided that they are human and the recipients of their violence are not.      III. The Question of Trust If one chooses, as a matter of convenience, to believe in the non-existence of God as fact, then one does not have to decide whether one trusts that God. But if one chooses to answer the question of God’s existence with “I don’t know, but I want God to exist; therefore, I choose to believe in the God’s existence as fact,” then one must ask oneself, “Do I trust this God in whose existence I have chosen to believe as fact?” This second element of the initial question of “Do you believe in God” is actually the more important of the two, for it has the power to confirm or negate the answer of the element pertaining to existence. The question of existence merely induces the response of “I choose to believe” or “I choose not to believe,” but the element pertaining to trust asks the person if that initial answer makes a difference. To trust in something simply means “to have confidence in” or “to rely on.” The question of trust is the element of “So what?” that follows the answer of existence. The reason why this second element of the question is so often ignored is that it requires courage to answer in the affirmative, and it appears that most people, if forced to answer the question honestly, would have to reply in the negative. They do not trust the God in whom they choose to believe.   One can believe that God exists while living as though God does not. This is proven everyday by millions of religious people. Many people take the existence of God for granted but never reflect on how that existence matters to their lives. Most act as if the significance of God’s existence is solely relegated to an afterlife. The logic seems to be that if one accepts the existence of something then one does not have to accept the significance of that thing. For example, Christians have argued with each other throughout the centuries and have tried to convince non-Christians who Jesus was; yet, in all of their efforts to come to and pass along the correct understanding of who Jesus was, they have forgotten what Jesus said. Jesus said not to judge others; and yet, the followers of Jesus often prove themselves to be the most judgmental. Jesus said not to respond to violence with violence; and yet, Christians support war and violence every day. Jesus said to give to those who ask of you; and yet, Christians very often pre-qualify the recipients of their charity. Jesus said that following what he said was the criterion for being his disciple, but millions of people claim to be his disciple and never once follow what he said. They choose to believe in his existence but they live as though they do not.   So the question that must be asked is this: “Can one really believe in the existence of God if that existence does not seem to make a difference in how one lives one’s life?” Anyone can choose to believe in the existence of God, but choosing to trust that God is another matter. To live as if that existence matters is much tougher than simply choosing to assent to the possibility of existence. To trust in God is to have faith not in God’s existence, but in God’s character. The question is then, “What is the character of the God that I have chosen to believe exists?” Frankly, character is the issue that makes or breaks God’s existence for many people. No one ever chooses to believe or not to believe in God’s existence solely because reason has led them to that position. Every person who has ever chosen to believe in God’s non-existence as fact has done so because tragedy and life, as well as those speaking on God’s behalf, place God’s character in doubt. When one no longer feels that one can trust God’s character, one simply chooses to live without God. All relationships are founded upon trust. Quite frankly, if the God of revealed Scripture is evidence of God’s character, then the God of traditional, organized religion is a God whose character should be called into question. If the words of the Bible are a “revealed” message from God to humanity, then God is very often capricious and mean, possibly suffering from a bi-polar disorder, a God who is certainly not to be trusted. In one chapter of Exodus, God calls Moses to free the Israelites, in the next chapter, God tries to kill Moses for no apparent reason. The God of the Bible is indeed a difficult God to trust. That may be part of the point of biblical literature.   Rational people tend to use experience as the measure for reality. This experience is not, of course, subjective experience, but objective experience. It is axiomatic that there is no such thing as pure objectivity. The most objective observation is infected with personal biases, beliefs, and wants. There is always a portion of milk within the carton that is sour, but as long as the majority of the milk is not yet sour, then people call it “good.” This seems to be true for objectivity as well. The difference being that the sour milk will eventually overcome the good milk, making the whole carton sour. Hopefully, subjectivity is not necessarily as imperialistic as sour milk, or at least, its imperialist can be held in check.    Nevertheless, the simple truth is that most people are not rational. At best, they are irrational creatures who may occasionally be burdened with moments of reason. Reason is a response to circumstances, while irrational behavior is a reaction to them. As previously mentioned, rational people tend to use empirical evidence as their standard in choosing reality. Their motto is a simple: “Seeing is believing.” Most people, however, live the inverse of the this maxim. For them “Believing is seeing.” This latter statement is never so true as when God is the topic of discussion.     THE NATURE OF GOD AND THE GOD OF NATURE     I. The Nature of God Christians believe that God has communicated with human beings through the writing of the Bible. Jews believe that God has communicated with human beings in the writings that Christians commonly refer to as the Old Testament. Moslems believe that God has communicated with human beings through the writing of the Quran, which was spoken to the Prophet Mohammed. Each of these three religions are practiced by people who clearly believe in God and who clearly believe that God has revealed God’s self to them through special writings called Scriptures. The theological term for this divine self disclosure is “revelation.” It is a writing’s revelatory tenor that makes it scripture. That is to say, a writing must possess some sense of God’s self disclosure to humanity in order to be considered Scripture, which is simply writing that contains God’s self revelation.   The Problem of Scripture. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other religions believe that God has revealed God’s self to human beings through the writing of Scripture. This is not troublesome, for if God wanted to let the world know about who and what God is, then God could certainly produce some special writings to accomplish that end. The problem is that each of the previously mentioned religions all believe in God’s existence and they believe that Scripture reveals who God is and what God is like; yet, they disagree on which writings are Scripture. Christians consider the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament) to be Scripture along with additional writings called the New Testament. Jews do not consider the New Testament to be Scripture, nor do they accept that the Quran is Scripture. Moslems accept the Jewish Scriptures as Scripture along with the Quran, but they do not accept that the New Testament is Scripture. None of them accept Hindu, Taoist or Buddhist writings as Scripture. Therefore, it is clear that people who believe in God tend to believe that God has revealed God’s self through a body of special writings; however, they disagree with each other over which writings are authentically Scripture. To compound the matter, Christians do not even agree with each other what is and what is not Scripture. The Roman Catholic Bible possesses seven more books in its Old Testament than does the Protestant Bible.     To deny a writing of its status of Scripture is to deny its revelatory nature. If Christians say that the Bible is Scripture but the Quran is not, they are saying that God has revealed God’s self in the pages of the Bible but not in the pages of the Quran. If it is assumed that God does in fact exist, and that God has revealed God’s self to humanity through special writings, then either God has done so through all religious writing, making them all Scripture, or God has not revealed God’s self through any of them. Of course it can be argued, as each religion does, that God has revealed God’s self through only one body of writing and the others are not Scripture at all. Yet, if God intends to reveal God’s self to all of humanity why would God limit God’s self to one culture and one body of writing? So it simply seems absurd that God would reveal God’s self in the Bible and not some other compilation of writings as well.   Basically, if it is assumed that any of the religions’ writings are Scripture, then it must be assumed that all of them are Scripture. How can one religion accept that their collection of writings were revealed to them by God and deny that possibility to other religions. If it is possible for God to be revealed in the Bible it is also possible for God to be revealed in the Quran. The only way that any religion can be certain that the writings of another religion are not revelatory is if they are certain that theirs are not as well. If they are certain that their collection of writings are revelatory, then they must extend that possibility to other religions as well. It is nothing short of vain arrogance to assume that God reveals God’s self to you but that God refuses to speak to your neighbor.   It is not logical to claim that God communicates to the whole of humanity by means of some special writing, which in turn is only offered to one particular community to the exclusion of all other human communities. Surely if God wanted to reveal God’s self to the whole of humanity, God would choose a more universal medium. If the Bible were God’s self revelation to the world, then it would have been given to the world and not merely Israel. Or to put it another way, if God had some special writing that was self-revelatory for the benefit of the whole of humanity, then logically God would make it clear to the whole of humanity which writings reflect God’s self and which writings do not. The very fact that there is debate, arguments, and confusion on the matter suggests that none of the writings that are claimed to be revelations from God actually are.   This is not to say that if God is the God of most peoples’ imagining that God could not and would not reveal God’s self through a literary agency. The point of dissension is based around God’s seemingly illogical approach to the task of informing humanity about God’s self. If God reveals God’s self to some and not to others, then God is being deliberately exclusive, which is wholly within God’s purview, but then God can neither blame nor condemn others for not receiving the revelation that was never given to them. If God reveals God’s self to some and not to others, then God is engaging in the practice of starting rumors, about which humanity can only choose to disperse the received gossip or to ignore it.    "No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he so pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication- after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him." (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, http://www.deistnet.com/agereson.txt).   So, the claims of the various religions that their sacred writings are the product of divine revelation are undermined by the diversity of religions in the world and the number of their divergent scriptural claims. Scripture, is the product of particular cultural, sociological, and historical contexts. The Bible, for instance, is the product of its ancient Mesopotamian context. The various Mesopotamian cultures existed within a larger polytheistic context, but each political entity came to worship one particular god or goddess exclusively, while accepting the existence of other gods and goddesses. The Hebrew god, YHVH, was originally conceived of in this context. YHVH was the exclusive god of Israel, but YHVH is said to have been a jealous god. What possible reason could YHVH have to be jealous if YHVH is the only god in existence. Therefore, the early Israelite writers accepted that there were other gods vying for Israel’s affections. If there were no other gods competing with YHVH over Israel, then YHVH is unnecessarily and thoroughly neurotic. The historical development of the sense of the divine in the Mesopotamian context is fairly certain. It is no surprise that YHVH was depicted in a neurotic manner since Mesopotamian theology itself was entirely neurotic. Mesopotamia was a harsh context in which to develop civilization. It was arid and blistering hot. The course of the rivers often suddenly changed, wiping out settlements. There were no natural barriers, which allowed the region to be constantly invaded by surrounding peoples. The result was that Mesopotamians considered their gods to be mercurial, capricious and arbitrary. All Mesopotamian religions (and all religions in general) began as fertility cults, in which the feminine earth is mated with a masculine sky or sun. The product of this cosmic union is the variety of plants and animals that populate the planet. In these fertility cults, there were also a plethora of gods and lesser gods who constantly competed with one another for leadership. Over time a particular god emerged as the leader of a people (for instance, YHVH of the Hebrews and Marduk of the Babylonians), which is conceived of as the ruler of all the other gods and goddesses. When a particular god became so identified with a particular state, its function expanded beyond merely conferring fertility to providing protection of the state from external enemies. It is after a god becomes the sole protector of a particular state that it begins to take on a moral element. The god becomes not just provider and protector, but also lawgiver. The god reveals certain laws to a people through chosen agents, who communicate that law to the general populace. Hammurabi, for instance, claimed that he received his famous Code directly from Marduk. Moses claimed to have receive the Torah directly from YHVH. The result of this development was that one’s civic life and one’s religious life became intertwined. To break the law of society was to break a divine command, which puts the lawbreaker in the undesirable position of offending a potentially irrational and capricious god. The recording of these legal “codes” and laws became the core around which the various scriptures were assembled. Therefore, if the purpose of Scripture is to provide the means of divine self-revelation, then there is a problem. From the historical development of religion in Mesopotamia, it is clear that so-called Scripture does not so much function as a divine self-revelation as much as it functions as the self-revelation of the interests of the state. The only way that Scripture in this context can be the self-revelation of God is if God and the state were one in the same, which, quite frankly, appears to be the concept that ancient rulers were attempting to advance.   This means that if the Bible is God’s self-revelation, then Jews and Christians must be in favor of the system of rule expressed in the Bible because to deny that system of government is to deny the God behind it. This means that Christians and Jews believe that the normative government for all humanity is a system of despotic, autocratic monarchy. This then means that North American Christians and Jews genuinely seek to overthrow the existing democratic governments of Western society because they do not reflect the God of the Bible (which does seems to explain the Religious Right). This means that in order to ensure the continuance of democratic government, Christians and Jews must be excluded from government. Whenever a Christian president utters the words “God Bless America,” he must be saying one of two things. Either he is saying “God, protect and preserve the democracy of America,” by which he is declaring that autocratic, despotic monarchy is not the normative government for humanity, and thus declaring that the Bible is not Scripture, or he is saying “God, overthrow the democracy in America and replace it with and ancient form of despotic monarchy under my leadership.” Either choice is undesirable because the Christian president either really does not believe in what he says he does (that the Bible is not Scripture), in which case he is a liar, or he really does believe in what he says he does (that the Bible is Scripture), in which case he is a danger.   The New Scripture? The problem expressed in the preceding paragraph is not merely a problem of Christian and Jewish leadership, it is the problem of religious leadership in general. Americans generally accept that God created humanity to be free, but religion appears to accept that God created humanity to be controlled. Religious Americans are in a position in which they must decide in favor of their Scripture, which results in bad citizenship, or in their civic ideals, which results in bad religious expression.    If Americans do accept that humanity is made for freedom, then Americans must accept the separation of church and state, for that is the only way to keep Americans free. If humanity is created for freedom, then religion must be kept out of government, and the document that expresses this sentiment must be divinely revealed since it is expressing a divine desire for humanity. God will humanity to be free. Therefore, God wills the separation of church and state. Therefore, the document that expresses such separation must be a divine self-revelation. Therefore, the American Constitution is Scripture. This logic is consistent with ancient forms of religious expression in which the interests of the state and the interests of the divine are one in the same. Therefore, America is not merely a relatively new country on the historical scene, it is also a fairly new religion.   To be an American is to assent to certain principles, such as liberty, freedom, a democratic form of Republic, justice, equality, etc., and to accept that these qualities are expressed in certain documents (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) provided to the American people by the “Founding Fathers” of the nation. Americans, whether they are aware of it or not, believe some element of divine truth is expressed in these documents, giving them Scriptural status. American Scripture is the political writings of the creators of America, which advocates a civic-secular religion. So the separation of church and state is an active attempt to keep antiquated systems of religion at bay so that the American civic religion can develop unhindered.   None of this is to advocate a divine government of the United States. It is merely intended to demonstrate that if one is going to have a concept of Scripture as a guiding force for the understanding of the divine, then American political literature is as valid as (and possibly more valid than) any other scriptural candidate. If Scripture is the product of its historical, political, and sociological context, then contemporary societies should spend more time examining how God reveals God’s self in contemporary literature and history rather than baptizing the literary expressions of the ancient past as the end all and be all of religions conviction for all time. Nevertheless, some will cling to the notion that God has spoken to human beings through some revealed writing. It is only natural, just as a young child resists the prospect that Santa Claus is a myth and that there is no such creature as the Easter Bunny. For those who believe that God has spoken through Scripture, the question must be asked: “Which Scripture?” As previously stated, all Scripture must be accepted if any Scripture is accepted; therefore, if one wants to find the God who reveals God’s self through Scripture, then one must collect all of the Scriptures of all of the religions of the world, and find those places where they say the same thing. If God has revealed God’s self though Scripture, then it is only those places in the plurality of Scriptures where they agree that must be God’s self-revelation. The places where they disagree must be mere human interpolations.     II. The God of Nature   If God is not to be found in the so-called revealed writings of Scripture, where then can one find a revelation of God? Can one even speak in terms of “revelation”? Perhaps the term is by its very nature too dogmatic and far too loaded with predetermined meaning to be a valuable classification. Perhaps the better question is “How does God communicate with humanity?” The simple answer is that God divine communication is located in those places of common human experience. The Scripture of the divine is three, and it is nothing less than the tableau of nature, the realm of experience, and the guidence of intuition. All human beings, regardless of culture, creed, or geography share one thing: a common existence rooted in a common natural environment. Quite simply, the nature of God is the God of nature. The natural order of the universe is, for those who choose to believe that God is, the means through which that God reveals God’s self to humanity. Regardless of location, political affiliation, or ideology, the God that exists is the God of all, and, therefore, must be a God who communicates God’s self to all; and there is no other common means of shared communication than that of nature.   Nature, defined as that which pertains to the physical world, is the medium through whcih God most clearly and consistently speaks to the whole of humanity. John Calvin believed that nature asserts that there is a God but cannot tell us anything about God. In other words, nature points to God’s existence but not to God’s character. Nevertheless, what if Calvin was incorrect? What if Calvin actually needed nature to be ineffectual. This does appear to be the case since Calvin’s entire argument is that God is only revealed to humanity through the pages of the Bible. Nature, for Calvin declares that God is, but only the Bible declares the kind of God who is. Every work of art bears the stamp of the artist who produced it. Nature, as a creation of God must bear God’s stamp; therefore, it must be somehow instructive of who God is. I may not know exactly who Picasso was based solely on his paintings, but I can get an idea of who Picasso was and what he was attempting to accomplish through his paintings. Through nature certain aspects of God can be ascertained. God is orderly. God is parental. God has established natural laws and govern the universe through those laws. God is patient. God is powerful. God is cyclical. This much can be deduced by examining the natural world in its most general sense. The second aspect of divine communication is reason, which is simply the power of contmeplating in an orderly manner. This reason is not the practice of beginning with a few first principles and employing logical deduction or induction to arrive at some kind of truth. The reason that comes from the divine is the reason that come from an orderly examination of experience. This reason is characterized by empirical study and the collection of empirical data. This reason is the process of studying the natural environment and discovering a reality which is based upon observation and experimentation. The final aspect of divine communication is that of intuition, which will be defined as the state of instinctive knowledge. Human beings have the tenacious habit of knowing certain things in spite of the apparent facts. Everyone at some point in their lives has had some bad feeling become justified through succeeding events. Most people have claimed to have sensed something before it occurred. Perhaps this knowledge comes as a divine communication. What then constitutes Scripture? Scripture is anything that appeals to one’s sense of the natural, to one’s reason, and that intuitively speaks to the person. Therefore, some of the Bible may be Scripture to some not be Scripture to others. It could as simple as a sunset; it could be as complex as an Italian sonnet. In short, that which is natural and rational, which sparks of intuition can be regarded as Scripture. What then is the purpose of Scripture? The purpose of Scripture is to express to human beings though common means that which constitutes the “good life.” Establishing the good life is the entire purpose of divine communication and organized religion. All religions must be evaluated according to their adherence to fosting the good life in their followers. The good life is noting more than a life that is dedicated to the pursuit of justice and guided by reason. The reason of faith is the establishment of the good life; the faith of reason accomplishes that goal. Therefore, all should feel the freedom of expressing their humanity and to choose their own vision of who God is (should they decide to choose in favor of God’s existence). If they choose in favor of God’s existence, then the difference it makes in their lives looks a lot like what Thomas Paine stated over two centuries ago: "I believe in only one God; and I have hope for happiness in an afterlife."   "I believe all men are equal; and I believe that religious duties should consist of being just and merciful to our fellow-creatures, and trying to make them happy."     "I do not believe in the religious creeds of the Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Christians or any other church I can think of. My mind is my own church."   Or as Lao Tzu wrote in the Tao Te Ching over two millennia ago (my translation): Those who are wise do not have closed minds; they are always willing to listen to other viewpoints.   I am good to those who are good to me. I am good to those who are not good to me. This is how I can increase the amount of good in the world. I trust those who are trustworthy. I trust those who are untrustworthy. This is how I increase the amount of trust in the world.   The God in whom I choose to trust requires nothing else but this. This is the essence of a religion which is based upon reason; and therefore, a religion worthy of an enlightened humanity.