Howdy, reader, your eyes are affixed – and rightly so – on this part of the world’s greatest blog conversation between two Drydens. This here is my contribution in response to the undisputed greatest Dryden blogger to ever visit Norfolk, David. Here’s the premise.
Previously in the conversation: David offered some generous and insightful reflections on what has influenced his worldview; offers his intriguing view on the role of justice where injustice appears prevalent and then gives some words worth your reflection on what kind of legacy he wants to pass on to his son. An admirable quality of my brother is that he’s not really self-absorbed or self-conceited, it’s one of many reasons why his writing is worth considering whilst reaching positions of your own on these issues that do have life-altering implications. Have a read of it for yourself – go on, you know you should. Done it? See. Told you it would be worth your while.
My brother threw across some tough questions my way and here are my efforts at engaging with them:
Q – You briefly touched on the purpose of the mainstream media. What are your thoughts on the possibility of a clandestine group controlling the media and government? Do you think entities like an Illuminati or secret cabal of the rich and influential control the flow of world events, controlling the popular desires and directions of the brutish masses? If so why? If not, why not?
Very, very interesting question. Is there any way in which this question could be answered objectively, comprehensively and without controversy? After all the nature of a secret society or a sinister, ominous and malevolent cabal is the importance of their conduct taking place behind closed doors and in the shadows. By that outline their existence isn’t going to be something people would be able to clearly demonstrate in a way that would be proof beyond all doubt, especially because it wouldn’t take much for those sinister, ominous and malevolent shadowy types to exert their influence and cast enough doubt on it.
Whilst there, I find, sometimes, that there’s almost as much sinister and obsessive about the focus on such a group as there is in the dealings of such a group. Economic crash – it’s because of the Illuminati; world war – it’s because of the Illuminati; car crash – it’s because of the Illuminati – they’re everywhere and influence every part of life so that whenever anything happens they know about it and can influence it one way or the other. I love the word ‘ubiquitous’ and it fits with that sense of their reach and control of the lives of many. So the focus on them can have a prevailing effect on some of those who want to believe in them. (At this stage I’m sure I should be whispering “Hail Hydra.”)
You could pick up the idea thus far that I’m relatively sceptical about such a force run by humans operating. Yet it is not that straightforward. Evil exists. Humans are prone to evil in thought, word and deed. Humans can organise to perpetrate evil. Part of the perpetuation of evil is about being clandestine, preferring the darkness, organising and effecting evil activity with minimum trails. It doesn’t take much for me to see that there are other forces at work with some of the developments of human history. Something like the murder of John F. Kennedy, the events that led to the invasion of Iraq earlier this century, the extent to which European states created trade routes and establish a presence in places that were not wholly beneficial to the indigenous population. That’s just scratching the surface.
On top of that, there’s the view I hold based on my understanding of God, etc that there are spiritual forces in operation in the world more than content to encourage the worse aspects of humanity. Thus the likelihood of there being human collectives that have an influence on developments in the world is likely. If you have thinktanks and such organisations that can put together projects with funding, etc. and they’re plain in the open, there’s no reason to believe there are similar collectives that look to see what they can do to act according to their agendas.
There is a follow-up issue for me, though, linked with what I mentioned about the obsessive nature of those who collate information on what such sinister groups get up to and that’s about even if such groups exist and carry on with what they do how should that affect how I live? Should I shrug my shoulders at injustice, iniquity and evil as being inevitable because there are nefarious forces at work? Should I make it my life’s goal to expose their actions? My current stance on this issue is that it’s enough to know that there’s an evil that lurks in the heart of man individual or collective, it’s enough to be aware of how they can express themselves and affect things and it is even more important to pursue what is right, just and true in whatever sphere we can and ensure we don’t get consumed to the obsessive degree that we’re reactive to the agenda of others rather than being committed to an agenda of our own.
Oh yeah, whilst I’m here, in as much as I don’t rule out the evil of humanity in clandestine covert collectives to look to shape events and the perception of them through the media, education etc I also have to highlight that sometimes it’s not just the intentional machinations of the wicked and foolish, a significant aspect has to be credited to the sheer stupidity, gross ineptitude and mass incompetence which has been on display.
Q – The atheist refers to his misunderstanding of God as “god of the gaps,” where God is just used to explain the gaps in our knowledge where he is evicted once humans conclude they’ve attained the knowledge. Does your view of the Maker & Sustainer of all undermine such thinking? How so?
There are many times I approach your questions and have to think carefully for quite some time before even typing a word on the document. This one for example. Those who deny the existence of God suggesting that the more we know proves that God doesn’t exist is just baffling. It’s as if God wouldn’t put those processes and principles in place for that which they claim to know. That’s not even beginning to address the nature of whether that which they claim to know is actually knowledge or working on the best premises that their theories and models of discovery have reached to this stage.
The understanding I currently operate on when it comes to things we know is that it can only really be explained because of the nature of God as Maker & Sustainer. And on that, I find that definition of God hugely reassuring. I get the impression that He has no problem with the voyages of discovery humans take to find how things are and how they operate, etc. It’s the same as people finding fascination in the making of films and programmes you enjoy. Finding out how things work doesn’t take the credit away from God, on the contrary, it gives greater credence to the handiwork of the Maker & Sustainer.
What I see in the god of the gaps argument is a bid to disprove God in suggesting that the discoveries contradict God as if what they find out turns to God and suggests corrections have to be made in our understanding of God because He clearly didn’t know how animals breed, how oceans operate, how the landmasses have shifted and changed as well as the what goes on in the cosmos. The pride and certainty with which they talk are always undermined by their own conceit as if their discoveries are permanent and authoritative.
Crediting God as Maker & Sustainer is a humble acknowledgement that makes less of me and more of a blatantly obvious Designer at work. Such acts are anathema to those who want to big themselves up for making all the discoveries on how things work as though their big and mighty intellect that has worked out all things need bow to no greater power. To me it’s folly. I hope I’ve engaged with your question as you’ve asked it, David.
Q – One thing that we can both agree on with regards to Jesus is that he was said to be a man, having the necessary elements of man, i.e., limitation, mortality, pain, weakness, hunger. But, in addition, or in distinction, you have him also as God, not just a god, but as the creator of the universe or having had divine participation in creation, having divine attributes of being outside of time, free from death, transcendent, all-knowing, superior in essence above all bar two other divine entities (me presuming trinitarianism of you and not modalism). How did you reach that conclusion? If I’ve made a mistake in my description, let me know.
Warning, reader. Please take the time to understand the question before offering an answer to it. True story on the first, second and third reading of the question, I thought David was being argumentative and contentious about my understanding of who Jesus is. I don’t mean that in a deliberately malevolent way as if David is a part of the clandestine covert collective mentioned earlier. I do mean it in the sense that David and I disagree on the issue of Jesus – it’s a severe disagreement as well with significant implications for our understanding of who God is. To the best of my recollection, David and I have never had heated arguments about the issue largely because we’ve recognised in some areas that heated arguments don’t offer the warmth that brings us closer together in joyous harmony.
I offer that long preamble because on the seventh reading of the question I have an appreciation that all David is asking me to do is share how I’ve reached the place of my current understanding of who Jesus is. That’s all he’s asking. At the moment.
As ever with these kinds of questions they open up a massive construct full of experience, learning, teaching, misunderstanding, correction and growing openness to learn more. Remember the question is about my journey to my conclusion at this stage. It is not a promise for the comprehensive response that will shut everyone up because I’m so awesome and clever.
How did I reach the conclusion that Jesus is God? Through an approach to understanding the Bible and the claims that Jesus makes about Himself and what subsequent writers in the scripture say about Jesus. The gospel account of John for example is based on understanding that he’s writing so that readers can believe that He is the Son of God and that in believing they will have life. The status of being the Son was contentious to his audience because it was claiming equality with God. An equality that He did not dispute or deny. In John’s writing of the appearance of Jesus in the book of Revelation, Jesus the Son receives the same acclaim as the Father does. There’s also what the apostle Paul writes about Jesus in different letters that establishes the deity of Jesus.
I don’t expect easy questions which is just as well because you don’t offer any. Grateful for the questions because they continue to challenge me to offer a reason for what I believe and why I believe it. I appreciate that thorough examination, bro.
Please lend me your consideration to these questions:
Q – Corruption is so much a part of human life that it’s futile to look to change things. What is your response to this statement and what is your reasoning behind the response?
Q – Define good and share what you find to be good in the world.
Q – How did you get into playing musical instruments, writing songs and producing music? Why is it an important part of your life?
I appreciate your commitment to quality in the conversation, bro, both in your responses and the questions. Keep on keeping on. Thanks for your time.
For His Name’s Sake
Shalom
C. L. J. Dryden
Life With CD 
One thought on “ADBC: 19 – God, Gaps and The Gruesome”