Whatever our opinion about God, we all have one. And that opinion rings true to us (even if we’re willing to revisit it, test it, adjust it, etc.). If we only half-believed our opinion (is that even possible?), then our inner conviction would never rise above the level of platitude. We adopt, or retain, the position that we find personally satisfying.
Some theological views about God are:
1. God exists
2. God does not exist (dogmatic atheism)
3. God might exist but whether God exists or not doesn’t impact life (practical atheism)
4. Many gods exist
5. There’s a good power in the universe and everything’s going to turn out okay
6. There’s a cranky power in the universe and everything’s going to turn out badly (just kidding)
7. God has never become incarnate
8. Jesus is God incarnate
9. Krishna is god incarnate
10. To talk to God, I must face Mecca
11. To talk to God, I must face the Wailing Wall
Each of these statements is a claim about truth. Even uncertainty is a truth claim; we’ve decided that uncertainty is the truth. Because we usually have several opinions about God, it’s fair to ask ourselves whether our claims make sense as a whole (are they coherent), whether they fit our everyday experience, and whether they are highly probable or less so.
Most importantly, we’ll want to ask whether our opinions provoke and inspire us to live morally responsive and responsible lives. We’ll also want to ask whether our opinions provoke and inspire us to help others flourish too.
The Naked Theologian 
I don’t know if you’ve seen the “spectrum of theistic probability” as popularised by Richard Dawkins. Here’s a description copied from Wikipedia:
“Dawkins posits that ‘the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.’ He goes on to propose a continuous “spectrum of probabilities” between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven ‘milestones.’ Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one’s place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These ‘milestones’ are:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.’
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’
Dawkins notes that he would be ‘surprised to meet many people in category 7.’ Dawkins calls himself ‘about a 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.'”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
For what it’s worth, folks who consider the “new athests” like Dawkins to be “dogmatic atheists” might be surprised to hear Dawkins say that he isn’t that certain (he isn’t at position 7 on his spectrum) and would not fit within the “dogmatic atheist” category.
Regarding truth claims about theological beliefs that make claims about the world we live in, would it be fair to examine these beliefs to see if they are consistent with external reality?
:Regarding truth claims about theological beliefs that make claims about the world we live in, would it be fair to examine these beliefs to see if they are consistent with external reality?
Yes, once upon a time Unitarians were supposed to do just that. Not any more it seems. . .
:For what it’s worth, folks who consider the “new athests” like Dawkins to be “dogmatic atheists” might be surprised to hear Dawkins say that he isn’t that certain (he isn’t at position 7 on his spectrum) and would not fit within the “dogmatic atheist” category.
Richard Dawkins may be softening his position somewhat these days but he has most certainly said things that warrant the “dogmatic atheist” description in the past and, in my opinion, is likely to do so again in the future.
:6. There’s a cranky power in the universe and everything’s going to turn out badly (just kidding)
You may be “just kidding” but maltheists are not. . .
Good to hear your voice in print! I have always enjoyed our conversations at Meadville so I will continue to look forward to your next entry here! Blessings, Fred
In my opinion, the idea that “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other,” is a problem. This type of statement neglects the distinctions between different types of proofs. Scientific proofs are based on logic and observation of external phenomena in the outside world. However, the existence of God, to my mind, requires an experiential proof, i.e. one that is lived. The fundamentalist Christians miss this point just as much as the dogmatic atheists. Both seem to want an intellectual, rational, scientific proof, where only an experiential one is possible.
If you would like to attempt to prove the existence of God, you could, for instance, apply the steps prescribed by St. John of the Cross in Ascent of Mount Carmel. After performing this existential experiment, you would then have your proof. The same goes for the proof of any religious or spiritual system: the only verification possible lies in the application; no logical proof is possible. Once the existential proof is had, no logical proof is necessary. Modern humanity seems to think that scientific proof is the only way to Truth. All mystical traditions assert, however, that direct experience of the Divine is the only true proof of God. And this direct experience is had not in the external world, where the scientist seeks his proofs, but within the temple of the heart.
:3. God might exist but whether God exists or not doesn’t impact life (practical atheism)
That might be better described as impractical atheism. . . It is hardly “practical” or realistic to believe that, even if God exists, God has zero impact on life.
:Scientific proofs are based on logic and observation of external phenomena in the outside world. However, the existence of God, to my mind, requires an experiential proof, i.e. one that is lived.
Sometimes that experiential proof of God’s existence is based on logic and observation of external phenomena in the outside world. Can U*Us say “synchronicity”?
OTOH one can quite rationally arrive at the conclusion that God exists based on logic and observation of external phenomena in the outside world without having the “experiential proof” of a direct personal experience of God.
:The fundamentalist Christians miss this point just as much as the dogmatic atheists. Both seem to want an intellectual, rational, scientific proof, where only an experiential one is possible.
Why do you believe that *only* an experiential proof of God is possible? Why do you rule out the possibility of intellectual, rational, scientific proof of God’s existence, to say nothing of God’s attributes?
Robin, while I have much personal experience with synchronicity, it only serves as proof to me. To a convinced atheist, synchronicity is merely coincidence that has had meaning projected onto it. There is no way to rationally convince my unbelieving friends that the synchronicities that have occurred in my life prove anything. They prove something to me, but that’s only because I was the one who experienced them. I would thus classify synchronicity as a form of experiential proof. As Haji Bektash the Sufi put it: “For him who has perception, a mere sign is enough. For him who does not really heed, a thousand explanations are not enough.”
And I, personally, as a matter of opinion, rule out intellectual, rational, scientific proofs of God because, as the Jews say, “The world is not God’s place; God is the place of the world.” In my understanding intellect, reason, and science all stem from the world and therefore can never contain that which is greater than the world. If God is infinite, how could She ever fit inside our finite minds? If it fits inside your head, it’s not God, ipso facto.
And I tend to agree with Moses Maimonides and the Vedantists, who both teach that we cannot attribute anything to the Divine. Anything we attribute to the Divine limits It, which is impermissible, since the Divine cannot be limited. Attributes are in the creation, but God is the well spring of all attributes. In my understanding, God contains and transcends all dualities, all qualities, else it is not God, but only a part of God. To mistake the part for the whole is one form of idolatry. Maimonides’ “Guide for the Perplexed,” goes into much detail on this point.
Josh, If you correctly read what I said about synchronicity I made it clear that it was indeed an *experiential* proof of God’s existence but it is an *experiential* proof that is none-the-less based on logic and observation of external phenomena in the outside world. I believe that proper scientific study of the phenomenon of synchronicity could serve as evidence for God’s existence and influence in the world, if not outright “proof” of God. Needless to say few scientists are terribly interested in going there though. . .
Intellect, reason, and science do not need to “contain” God, God is pretty uncontainable as you rightly point out, but they can certainly be used to provide evidence of God’s existence and at least some of God’s attributes. Human beings can and do attribute plenty to the Divine. Most Biblical prophets did just that, including Moses and Jesus who outrank Moses Maimonides AFAIC. I can attribute this Intelligent Design to the Divine and doing so does not in any way limit It.
Interesting, and perhaps telling, that you did not label cateogry 1 – God exists – as (dogmatic theists.)
A version of Practical Theism might read …
God is either omnipotent and uncaring, or impotent and all-loving. Practical experience demonstrates that an all-loving and omnipotent God does not exist (unless you pull out the God-works-in-mysterious-ways canard.)
Read Bart Ehrman’s “God’s Problem” for a compelling scholarly and personal account of a former Evangelical’s conclusion that God, if He exists, has a lot of ‘splaining to do.