422 years after a scientist was burned at the stake for insisting that the sun did not revolve around us we still insist that the world does. And those of us who maintain that it does not, continue to be vilified. I may not be burned at the stake, but I am most certainly tied to it. I am put in my place over and over and over again by those who know better. My biggest crime? Searching for answers because I don't know better. To take comfort and be justified in one's certainty requires that those who don't know, those who question, those who seek profundity in uncertainty, be tied to their stake, out of the way, tongue gagged, over there. Though today you may not strike the match, if you know you know, you are made of the same stuff as those who lit the torches back in 1600.

What is perhaps more appalling to me than those who stand up and shout, “Yes! Burn them alive!” is the number of those who rhetorically speak out against it yet stand by and let them burn. “What can I do?” is a frequent refrain; and from one who is tied to their stake, in their place, tongue gagged, over there, it may even be a valid point. But for the one tying the knots or even the bystander free of or less encumbered by knots, it is unconscionable; and to be truthful many of us are periodically less encumbered. I see this what-can-I-do-song-and-dance as more appalling not only because at the least we could stop tying the knots or we could untie some knots or we could stop widening the gap or we could make stronger more consistent appeals, but also because I believe (I want to believe) the numbers have begun to turn about where for the first time in our history we have consensus compassion. Yet our actions (and inactions) serve to bureaucratically maintain status quo and perpetuate injustice.

In recent years the cause of ignorance has been advanced by loud and (sometimes) violent public protests. In past years the cause of compassion has been advanced by peaceful and (sometimes) loud public protests. This in itself, the perception of a turnaround from groups of individuals peacefully protesting ignorance to groups of individuals violently protesting compassion, supports my belief that compassion has become more mainstream; more of a threat. Or perhaps it is the benefit of hindsight that has balanced this scale. Perhaps I see the positive results of the peaceful protests in decades past as weighing more than the status quo encouraged by the violence at the time, whereas today, in this moment, it is the violence that weighs heavier on my mind. Regardless, even if there is a proportionate number of individuals and groups today peacefully protesting ignorance, we need a greater sense of urgency because it has become apparent that the price we will soon have to pay has become greater. We need larger numbers and a peaceful nonviolent way to grab headlines. We need this turnaround to include action and not stop with mere thoughts and verbal gymnastics. We need leaders willing to risk not knowing; willing to seek profundity in uncertainty.

In this vein, this week I have given considerable thought to the uncertainty of God and how that may benefit our growth and even our survival. I have worked to come up with a balanced incontrovertible consideration of this uncertainty applicable and useful to any theological debate. Whether one debates the existence of God and/or His or Her role in our lives, simply by debating I believe we are acknowledging some common factors including intentionality, necessity, the existence of Humanity, and the substantiality and/or essentiality of each Human individual. So if God is intentionality as expressed in Humanity’s existence and if individual existence is substantiality as expressed in causal activity then God (because a very, very large majority of us have no choice but to exist within this structure of causal activity) is for all practical purposes nonexistent; unnecessary. However, if God is intentionality as expressed in existence and if existence is essentiality as expressed in the dichotomous nature of Humanity, then God has suddenly come to life through a synthesis, or at the least a commingling, of constraint and liberation that is necessary for a depth of individual character that can be called essential. Be it (that is one’s character) nuanced or laden with Goodness or Malevolence, Compassion or Cruelty, Empathy or Indifference, a desire for Justice or a self-serving greed, God becomes the creative force. In fact, I believe that an individual character may be heavily laden in one direction (Goodness, Compassion, Empathy and Justice), or the other (Malevolence, Cruelty, Indifference and Greed), but all individuals are necessarily nuanced in both directions, as potentially and actually also influenced by circumstance. This of course means that if God is intentionality as expressed in Goodness, Compassion, Empathy and Justice, God must also be the creative force that drives expressions of Malevolence, Cruelty, Indifference and Greed. To complete this thought, an insistence that God is a mindset or doctrine or ideology is constraint without freedom and an entrenched belief that ‘my’ way is Goodness; whereas an insistence that God is dead is freedom without constraint and a laissez faire approach to responsibility and resolution. And it is much easier to tie knots and light fires if one is unburdened with constraint or if one is trapped within a creed. And though both of these individuals may lay claim to substantiality as measured by causal activity, neither of these individuals is weighed down by the dichotomous considerations of uncertainty, thus leaving a character (a soul? a spirit?) lacking the depth and weight that is necessary for essentiality.

In any discussion of God I believe anyone, regardless of personal belief, would find it difficult to uncouple God from intentionality. So as intentionality God could conceivably be an interested and/or active party, a bystander or an enveloping ideation. And, as posited above, regardless of individual belief God is required for existence to be essential as opposed to merely substantial, because though substantiality is, well, substantial, it does not require the weightier aspiration or volitional inspiration that essentiality seems to due to the dichotomous nature of Humanity. So in this sense the argument becomes one of substantiality vs. essentiality or ultimately certainty vs. uncertainty. Put another way, from substantiality one may stay put and be certain or one may grow into essentiality which requires one to embrace uncertainty.

We should not be arguing over the existence of God or His or Her role. We should be deliberating the existence, conscious acknowledgement, revelation and manifestation of consensus uncertainty.