Belief Talk is meaningless because it makes no sense.
The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God"
Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶27
The above statement illustrates the difficulty, in my view, of discussing doctrines of belief and faith objectively, because so often belief statements, apart from their vague, poetic nature, have little practical meaning. Or the meaning is only clear if one accepts the underlying premise on faith, becomes emotionally attached to that premise, and therefore abnegates any hope of objectivity.
Clearly the language of faith is not objective; it must take sides. Not only that, statements of faith, by their very nature must remain to a large extent incomprehensible; because to be clear and precise is to risk bumping into basic standards of proof and evidence. Better to be poetic and vague, leaving the actual meaning open to interpretation (an interpretation that can change if the need arises - something that happens quite a lot) rather than risk being proven wrong.
So the theist can say "desire for God is written in the human heart" confident that he will not be gainsaid; after all, he is merely speaking poetically. In this modern age of course we know the heart is not where our desires originate, and the thought of anything "written" there is preposterous. And yet, we accept what is asserted because we are sympathetic to poetry and analogy. And we have been culturally conditioned to accept such statements as beyond contention; therefore the theist is usually given a free pass, and his first assertion is accepted, or at least not subjected to critique.
But if the "desire for God" is not written in our hearts, where does it reside (if it exists at all)? Surely the answer lies somewhere above our necks. But is it enough to simply alter the phrase to "the desire for God is written in the human mind"? It's certainly closer to the truth, though it leads to a host of problems for the theist, not to mention a multitude of further questions for the objective inquirer. For instance: isn't it possible that there are cultural, evolutionary, and biological reasons that cause humans to be predisposed to religion?
Yes, there are.
An evolutionary biologist would say that humans evolved as social animals in order to survive; after all, there is strength in numbers. And our brains evolved, giving us a natural curiosity, and the ability to communicate, plan, and imagine. Being curious allowed us to see patterns in the world around us, which aided our ability to plan. An animal that could plan ahead, communicate to its fellows, and weigh possible scenarios in his mind would have a tremendous advantage over all other life-forms.
An anthropologist would add that our pattern-seeking ways, our need to maintain social order, our ability to communicate, and our imagination combined to create this "desire for God" which was passed on through myths and legends. "Desire for God" therefore is really no more than a desire for order and an end to uncertainty; learned behaviors which for various reasons, are culturally encouraged.
At this point, when confronted with the above scenario, the theist will do one of two things:
1. He will retreat into the language of poetry, analogy, and paradox, where his God is safe from objective scrutiny, saying that he speaks of "higher things, spiritual things" and things that are beyond reason. At this point, I am reminded of the term for something that is at odds with reason: unreasonable. For all the talk about faith and reason coexisting, in the end, it is never an equal partnership: for the theist, faith will, indeed must always have the final say.
2. The second option is that the theist will simply agree with the above. But he will assert that God is the ultimate source and purpose for it after all:
For one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For "in him we live and move and have our being."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶28
At first glance this second option is the wiser of the two. It accepts modern scientific theory, and bows to reason, while maintaining it's hold on belief as offering the "meaning" for it all.
But if one is searching for proof of God, how is this option different from no God at all? If God chose to hide his actions within natural causes, there would seem to be little we can do to discern God. When confronted with this argument, the theist appeals to the “incomprehensible nature” of God. Humanity cannot understand God’s ways. For this believer, God, hidden so well in the natural world, is simply unknowable. How is this different from agnosticism? As George H. Smith says, “Scratch the surface of a Christian and you will find an agnostic.”{Smith, 1989, Atheism: The Case Against God, 50} Here again, reason is useless as a means of discovering God.
So we are presented with two ways of expressing belief. One is deliberately evasive, pays lip service to reason but in the end cheerfully discards it in favor of an unreasoning commitment to faith. The other accepts reason to such an extent that it can no longer discern the difference between God and natural processes.
In discussing doctrines of faith, therefore, it is nearly impossible to objectively understand what the believer is asserting because the belief statements either do not hold up to critical scrutiny, or are so vague and nebulous that they lack any substance worth discussing in the first place.
