The G-Question 2: Model Dependent Realism

The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design. 

Models use things we can see and understand to help us picture things we cannot see, like atoms, or don’t fully understand, like light. At school, atoms are pictured crudely as miniature solar systems. This image is a helpful starting point but far from the reality. Light is pictured as both a particle and a wave since neither image/model is adequate by itself. Models are only approximations to a reality that is ultimately unknowable. Fortunately in the physical world equations can describe the behaviour of atoms and light where models fail. 

There is no model for G-O-D

But what about the spiritual world? What about G-O-D? I don’t like the G-word because there is no agreed or adequate model, and there are certainly no equations. Who or what is G? What is G like? Does G answer prayer? Does G hold you to account when you die? Is G simply a human invention to plug the gaps in our our knowledge, such as the origin of the universe or the origin of life? These questions will bring a multitude of different answers depending on who you ask.

If G exists, he* is someone (something?) we cannot see and who (which) is completely beyond our understanding. We are faced with a mystery, so to think about G at all we have no choice but to use models based on ourselves. Words like Creator, Judge, Ruler, Lord and so on, but with attributes stretched to superhuman level using words like omnipotent and omniscient. In the OT we find expressions like Jehovah-Jireh (God the provider), Jehovah-Rapha (God the healer) and Jehovah-Nisi (God the banner or victorious) to flesh out the meaning of Jehovah. Islam has 99 attributes of Allah to help pin down the mystery that is Allah.

When Moses had a vision of a voice coming from a burning bush telling him to go to Egypt and set free the Israelite slaves, he asked, "What is your name". The voice replied, " I AM". Not so much a name as a statment of existence. The writer of this ancient text had the wisdom to know that you cannot put a name to a mystery.

Jesus had an interesting approach. He modelled a relationship by referrring to G as Father.

This World is Not Conclusion

Has humanity actually deceived itself? Is there nothing there to model in the first place? Many would say yes; there is no G of any description. Personally, I cannot adopt this absolutist position and instead find myself in tune with Emily Dickinson in her poem, This World is Not Conclusion:

This world is not conclusion.

A species stands beyond  

Invisible as music 

But positive as sound 

It beckons and it baffles  

Philosophy don’t know  

And through a riddle at the last  

Sagacity must go 

To guess it puzzles scholars 

To gain it men have borne

Contempt of generations

And crucifixion shown 

Faith slips and laughs and rallies  

Blushes if any see  

Plucks at a twig of evidence  

And asks a vane the way  

Much gesture from the pulpit 

Strong Hallelujahs roll  

Narcotics cannot still the tooth

That nibbles at the soul 

G is Love. So Love is G?

In the Bible, in I John 4:7-8, we read:

“Beloved, let’s love one another; for love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”  

The word “love” here is the translation of the Gk. “agape” which means unselfish, sacrificial love. This is the love that Paul describes so memorably in 1 Cor:13.

Love is patient and kind; 

Love is not jealous or boastful;

it is not arrogant or rude.

Love does not insist on its own way;

it is not irritable or resentful;

it does not rejoice at wrong, 

but rejoices in the right.

Love bears all things,

believes all things,

hopes all things,

endures all things.

In my evangelical Christian past I expected G to be visible in the world as he clearly seemed to be in Jesus’ ministry. This visibility I conceived to be a powerful G showing himself in healings and miracles, which would then lead to a supernatural awareness of G sweeping through a community as the power of his Spirit was made visible. I became absorbed by historical revivals "moves of God" in Wales and the Hebrides, and modern revivals in Toronto and Pensacola. A friend offered to pay for me to go to Pensacola, but I refused the offer because I wanted to see this power in my hometown. 

Yet no amount of prayer, worship, preaching or fasting brought revival about - “We piped for you, but you did not dance”. We were like the priests of Baal in the OT who danced round the offering on the altar but could not set it ablaze. 

If G really is G, why is he not seen to be G? Surely if G has any existence, then he must be present in the world and in every part of it, and not just among Christians or any other exclusive group. 

I eventually realised instead of looking for a G of power I should be looking for a G of sacrificial love, and when I did, G was visible everywhere. Every day across the whole Earth people of all religions and none, lay down their lives for one another in selfless love. The Parable of The Good Samaritan is lived out across the world every hour of every day, and the G who is Love is revealed.

Sacrificial love is the way I have come to understand the G-word. It is the refuge where I have made my home. Instead of trying to imagine an incomprehensible, unknowable and unseen G, I think instead of unselfish, sacrificial love. Also, as John's letter says, in giving this love and seeking to live unselfish lives, we become children of G. 

But I also understand G. as Jesus taught, the Father who welcomes home his erring children.

* G is always thought of as male - why? Surely just patriarchal societies stamping their culture on the deity.

The G-Question 3: The Two Kingdoms