I don’t know anything about God. Further I will say with some strong degree fo certainty that no one knows anything about God either.
There are theories, propositions, intuitions about God. There are suggestions, concerns, queries and questions about God. There are sketches, rondeaux, intimations of God.
All those things seem to me interesting exercises in imagination, in engaging the totality of who I am with something which is more than I can possibly be.
This is not a trivial thing, but it is not knowledge.
Knowing God is like knowing the Sun. I can know about the Sun, and in fact I know a lot about it. Scientifically I know about size, shape, weight, temperature, etc. Artistically and poetically I know a lot as well. Starting with the Flammagorion and going through lots of Van Gogh’s paintings and Munch’s The Scream.
Or in poetry with Larkin’s closing stanza in “High Windows”:
Rather than words comes the thought of high windows:
The sun-comprehending glass,
And beyond it, the deep blue air, that shows
Nothing, and is nowhere, and is endless.
Or e. e. cummings':
i thank You God for most this amazing
day: for the leaping greenly spirits of trees
and a blue true dream of sky; and for everything
which is natural which is infinite which is yes
(i who have died am alive again today,
and this is the sun’s birthday; this is the birth
day of life and of love and wings: and of the gay
great happening illimitably earth)
how should tasting touching hearing seeing
breathing any—lifted from the no
of all nothing—human merely being
doubt unimaginable You?
(now the ears of my ears awake and
now the eyes of my eyes are opened)
Yes I know a lot about the sun. But the sun, the sun itself, exploding within the chalice of its own gravity well…not so much.
Jesus knew God because Jesus knew himself. Can I use some sort of Euclidean spiritual geometry and say that Jesus knows God. I know Jesus. Thus I know God? Or am I, truly, hyperbolic held to non-Euclidean principles and positively defective triangles?
This matters because if I think Reality is FLAT, then I can hold on to the Fifth Postulate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate). But if it is not…
While I want to get God right, I find that if I am honest the best I can do is to get the experience of Godliness right. This is different.
But how do I know this experience or that experience is godly or not without some sort of premise which will allow me to discern godly influences from non-godly ones? Does this not require that I search for some position on the Source?
e. e. cummings suggests a solution and that is to become like the “sun comprehending glass” – what does that mean? The glass comprehends the sun because the glass lets the light shine through. That in me which blinds me to God is the same thing that complains its inability to know God.
So the work is to unfold into god-comprehension. This probably requires work. But it is negative work: it is a work of removal, a work against work, a work against results, against goals, against purpose even. It is about becoming as sun-comprehending as the glass.
So that would be the “why”. The next question is where can this work be done? How is it to be done? And what, precisely, is to be done? To these questions there are no satisfactory answers, especially to the “what” question. As I suggested above the god-comprehending work unfolds in non-Euclidean space, and the 5Ws are very much players in traditional Euclidean space.