Does God Exist?

This was the topic of a formal debate between two nationally known philosophers that I saw last week on video at a local public screening. The event was hosted by the North Carolina Society for Ethical Culture, and I wanted see what kind of dialogue would take place in a public forum on this topic.

I realized during the first minute or so of the opening arguments that I was not really interested in this topic at all, much less in a public screening of the debate. I realized that these were the same basic arguments for and against the existence of God that I had read about in college. There was nothing new here for me in this debate, and suddenly I was bored and ready to leave.

I had assumed that there would be some nuance to the debate and that the two philosophers would acknowledge some of the things that they held in common and then lead us into a fruitful discussion about how we can seek to live together in peace, even though we think differently regarding questions of transcendence. Since that didn't seem to be the case, I left the debate early.

Since then, I came across an article by Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor. This particular article of his maps a range of possibilities available today in the modern West concerning orientations toward the idea of transcendence. Taylor illuminates the rich and beautiful complexity to be considered in these matters. He charts nuanced movements within and among religious traditions, philosophical trends, and spiritual practices. He shows that, while it is even more so the case today, the question of transcendence has been complex throughout history, even within the bounds of particular religious traditions.

This past week, the question "Does God Exists?" was shown to me to be, among other things, passe. And I think that is as it should be. The arguments to support either position on this issue are too often part of an arsenal of weapons routinely employed by either side in the culture wars. In other words, a simple affirmation or denial of this theoretical question, especially when accompanied by arguments, is usually perceived (if not intended) to be an attempt to influence the vision of America that will dominate our culture. The two simple positions represent polar opposites, and discussing the issue without considering its complexity virtually assures that we will continue to be locked into our battles and debates.

Assuming a certain amount of complexity and open-endedness to questions surrounding the ways transcendence comes into human experience seems to me to be the best way forward if we are going to share any kind of constructive dialogue on spiritual and ethical matters.