Does God exist?

This was the title of a book published years ago by Hans Kung, a Swiss theologian. There are those who would swear and affirm that Kung's whole purpose in life is to antagonize the Vatican. He did so to the point that Rome - a name that Kung always pronounced with a certain disdain and a slight roll of the eyes - told him that he could no longer call himself a Catholic theologian. He was still Catholic, mind you, and he was still a theologian. He just wasn't a Catholic theologian.

How's that workin' out for you, Rome? Kung's books continued to sell well. He was invited to be a guest lecturer at universities throughout the western world, and it was very difficult to get into the sections in which he lectured. He was influential at Vatican II, and people still pay attention to him.

Kung published Existiert Gott?, the original German version, in 1978. The English translation, Does God Exist?, was copyrighted later in 1978. I have a copy on my bookshelf. It's a bit beaten up; it's been one of my dippin'-into books for years.

Kung doesn't play coy with his answer. In the Introduction, he says that the answer will be, Yes, God does exist.  He takes a well-informed and extensive look at various Western trends that may say otherwise - followers of Marx,of Freud, and a plethora of others - and winds up at the same place: God does exist.

I ask the qustion also, and, like Kung, I mean to have no suspense here. I am a believer; God does exist. But I won't be as comprehensive as Kung (really, does anyone have time for that?)

 I freely concede that I can't prove the existence of God. Here I am far more Kierkegaardian than Thomist. (That would make me a very untypical Catholic.) Thomas taught that the existence of God is subject to logical proofs - the ontological argument, the unmoved mover, etc. Those aren't really proofs, though; there's always room for something to sit in the gaps. (No time to explain all that.)

Kierkegarrd's position, and mine, is that the existence of God cannot be proved. The nonexistence of God also can't be proved. We gather all the available evidence on one side or the other, but there is no conclusive, compelling proof, one way or the other. The term"Leap of faith" is a very Kierkegaard sort of term. After we gather all the evidence available, it's still not proof. Believers take a leap of faith, knowing the gaps. Nonbelievers are also taking a leap of faith. They tend not to be as aware of that leap, and they think they've got the gaps covered, but they take it nonetheless, and they don't.

So, I take the leap. I make the decision every day to take that leap (yes, I have something of the existentialist in me, too. One day at a time.) My evidence does not constitute proof, but it's enough for me. My evidence is in my recovery from my battle with alcoholism (that one-day-at-a-time thng again); it is my life history, of just the right people being in just the right place at just the right time. My evidence is in the creation, and the fine-edged knife edge it rests on. My evidence is in family and love. My evidence is in the mystery that is part of life and death, and in the knowledge that there are some things that the folks in the lab coats can't explain. It's bigger than human reason.

I take the leap.

Thanks for hanging out!