Paul’s Spiritual Beliefs: It’s all so complex and incomprehensible!

If we cannot comprehend
God, then how can we understand His existence? How can finite and limited human beings say
anything meaningful about an infinite God? If there is a God then He certainly does not
intervene with the affairs of human life and the natural laws of the universe. By combining
beliefs from both Deism and Agnosticism this might best describe Paul’s spiritual beliefs…

Deist: One who believes, on purely rational grounds, in the existence of God without
accepting the revelation implied in religious dogma (Deism). [from Webster’s Dictionary]

Agnostic: One who believes that God, life hereafter, etc., can neither be proved nor disproved
(Agnosticism). [from Webster’s Dictionary]

Deism is a religious philosophy that derives the existence and nature of God from reason and
personal experience. Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to
assert that God does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the natural laws of the
universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most Deists see as
interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources. Deists believe that
God's greatest gift to humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason. Deism is a sub-category
of theism, in that both entail belief in a deity. Like theism, Deism is a basic belief upon which
religions can be built. In contrast to theism, there are currently no established Deistic religions,
with the possible exception of Unitarian Universalism and Confucianism. The concept of Deism
covers a wide variety of positions on a wide variety of religious issues. Deism can also refer to
a personal set of beliefs having to do with the role of nature in spirituality. Conversely, Deism
can be a belief in a deity absent any doctrinal governance or precise definition of the nature of
such deity. Deism can be similar to naturalism. Therefore, Deism will often give credit to the
formation of life and universe to a higher power that by design allows only natural processes to
govern creation.

Agnosticism is the view that knowledge of whether or not God exists is unattainable, that we
cannot be justified in believing either that God does exist or that He does not.
There are two approaches to arguing for this view: first, it can be argued that knowledge of
God’s existence is unattainable because no evidence could ever justify religious belief, and
second, it can be argued that knowledge of God’s existence is unattainable because evidence
of God’s existence is unattainable. One argument of each kind is considered here.

Agnosticism and the Argument from Uncertainty

The argument from uncertainty takes the fact that we cannot achieve certainty as to whether God exists
as justification for agnosticism. Whatever evidence there is for theism and for atheism is fallible, the
argument suggests, and therefore ought to be rejected. Of course, we accept fallible evidence as
sufficient justification for many of our beliefs, so this argument will only be persuasive if there is some
reason to require better evidence when answering religious questions than we require in these other
cases. One possible reason for so doing is the importance of being right concerning the existence of
God.

Agnosticism and the Argument from Incomprehensibility

An alternative approach to arguing for agnosticism is the argument from incomprehensibility. Theists
have often been content to say that we are unable to comprehend God, that His being transcends our
mundane experiences and that our concepts, which are derived from such experiences, cannot be used
to describe Him. If true, then this might be thought to count in favour of agnosticism; if we cannot
comprehend God, then how can we reason with any confidence concerning His existence?