Why Is It So Hard to Find God?
“Each of us finds God in our own time and in our own way.”
Shortly after being born, my family christened me into the Orthodox faith. I considered myself a “Christian” up until my high school years when I started to research more deeply into my own faith and the religions of the world, after which I became an obnoxious atheist.
I call myself obnoxious now because I really was, I knew very little of the matters I was talking about, and yet I foolhardily continued to spew my beliefs. Ironic, since one of my greatest issues with the church was its perpetuation of that very same practice.
During my university years, I actually invested myself into studying these topics more seriously and became an agnostic as a result of it, someone who was not quite sure that God existed, and yet had too much knowledge to outright deny him.
Now, I find myself at a precipice. I desperately want to be a believer, and yet, I’m burdened by too many questions to be able to make the final leap of faith.
Question #1: Why is God innate in all of us, and yet everyone claims that their interpretation is the correct one?
One thing that I’ve learned from my studies is that the idea of a holy and a profane can be found in each and every human culture. Each culture considers something to be holy and sacred, something that is a collection of the best characteristics hyperbolized beyond our powers of reckoning. Equally, we all have something that we consider profane, something that has an immanent power to corrupt and destroy all that is and that which is good. The names we give these powers are irrelevant. What really matters is that we consider them to be higher than us, yet wholly capable of influencing our lives.
Because we all share in this kind of belief, naturally, each of us has our own interpretation of God. And following from that, each of us has our own justification for why our God is the “actual” God and why the other interpretations aren’t.
A question then arises. What makes one interpretation more justified than the other then?
If it’s logical, then we just have to investigate the foundations of the justification to determine its truthfulness. What happens then if multiple justifications are truthful and grounded in logic? Then it becomes a matter of personal belief and preference, which is something that cannot and should not stand regarding matters of faith and the truth. Coincidentally, that is the reality of our current world as it stands. The reason there are so many faiths and so many believers within those faiths is that they are logically justified and sound. Who’s to say which of those faiths is right then?
Question #2: An omnipotent & omnipresent God would not be any lesser if he appeared in a corporeal form.
This type of reasoning is a staple of atheistic thinking, especially the age-old parole of: “If God is real, then why can’t I see him?” The typical theistic response to that argument is that there is no need for God to appear in a corporeal or material form as he is already present everywhere, the only thing required to find him is faith.
Why is that though? Why is faith the only requirement to get to know God? If God is omnipotent and omnipresent, his manifestation as a corporeal form would not detract from his omnipresence or omnipotence, if anything, it would only affirm it.
Omnipresence means that he is present everywhere to the point that you cannot miss him. The only way to miss an omnipresent God is to willingly avert your sight from him. But what about those who are simply ignorant but otherwise capable of reason and perception? Surely they should be able to recognize a being that is present everywhere at all times? Why is it the case that even they do not immediately recognize the presence of a God?
What’s more. If a being is truly omnipresent, why is a special process required to receive insight into it? Having faith in itself is a process inasmuch as it is a quality. If a process is required to reach an entity that is already present everywhere, either the process is faulty or the claimed omnipresence of the entity isn’t as “present” as previously believed.
Question #3: Why is religious belief predicated on the belief that humans are fallible?
Each religion is predicated on the belief that humans are fallible in some way. This sort of belief is foundational for each religion, as each attempts to give its own solution to the problem of human fallibility. Why is that the case though? Why are religions so infatuated with advising us on how to live properly?
It's nigh impossible to find a religion that doesn’t have an ethical component to it. Why is that though? Why cannot religions survive and thrive with only a theological component while leaving the ethical component out?
The typical atheistic response to this is control. I.e. this sort of arrangement is purely a construct for control. The theistic response on the other hand would be to say that this is the case because we need to be taught to act in line with what is proper and avoid the improper. Admittedly, that is much easier when what is good is hyperbolized rather than corporeal.
Question #4: Why do religions experience change if they claim to be the truth?
In every religion on the planet, there exist different sects, each claiming that they’re the true holders of the original truth. Why is that the case? There’s an easy anthropological answer to this, however, there’s no easy theological answer for it.
Anthropologically, the answer is simple. It’s a matter of power and control. The sect that manages to win the dispute increases its power and control while the losing sect gets destroyed or excommunicated. The common theological justification for this problem is that it’s a matter of interpretation, i.e. which interpretation is more orthodox?
Historically, these kinds of matters were usually resolved via bloodshed and strife. And since that’s the case, a problem comes up. A theological dispute resolved via force is not a theological dispute resolved. Who is to say then which of the many secs of a religion is the true one?
Furthermore. Even if a sect manages to secure its dominance over the others, why does every sect naturally experience change over the years? How can any religion claim to be the truth when its “truth” has changed over the years?
Question #5: Why is religious thought evolving with time?
Every religion claims to speak the eternal truth. If that statement is true, then there shouldn’t be an evolution in religious thought, and yet there is.
The earliest known form of religious thought is considered to be animism, which believed that certain objects held powerful spirits in them. That later evolved into totemism, which started ascribing lore to certain effigies. From totemism came shamanism, which is marked by an increase in religious rites. After shamanism, came polytheism, whose defining feature is the creation of different pantheons of gods. And finally, we have monotheism, which believes that there is only one all-powerful God that presides over everything.
My question then is. Who is to say that monotheism will be the “true final form” of religious though? Or that religious thought won’t experience any more natural evolution after it?
Conclusion & Final Thoughts
If you read the essay thus far, I thank you for your patience and I hope I satisfied your desire for curiosity. Realistically, I believe that humanity will never be rid of its questions regarding the divine, however, for the topics to truly evolve we need to constantly be asking new questions rather than repeating the same old paroles.
That last point is a critique toward both sides, atheists, and theists. For the longest time, people have been debating the exact same questions, and, naturally, receiving the exact same answers. If we’re to evolve our thoughts and strengthen our convictions, we need to devise new questions to broaden our horizons on the matter.
Now, to answer the question that started this essay. The reason it’s so hard to find God is because it’s an ongoing process, rather than a specific event in time. Each of us finds God in our own time and in our own way.
