this is a post responding (or corresponding) with my dear friend's recent post at 50fifty.

i definitely agree with the statement that it seems that Penn is writing about the large subset of Christianity that is rather close-minded and scared of anything outside the box. i think as a Christian, if you haven't asked yourself, "what if there isn't a God" and proved it to yourself in some way, then you may be lacking a large part in your belief in God. if you don't question, you can never learn... it's like being in a relationship with someone and not ever having doubts that the person is the one. but maybe that's the problem with marriage, as evident by the ever-rising divorce rate...

but as an example, i know that some talk of Christians that are "babies of the faith" as in they came to believe at a later time in their lives. i take part in a bible study with people that are ALL older than me by quite a bit (5-10 years at least) and long-time Christians yet last night ran across thoughts from around the room that were like those of said "babies." we were finishing up the epistle to the church of Phillipi that Paul wrote to them from jail. the last chapter is full of great verses (i won't quote them all, read it sometime!) that are often quoted on Christian merchandise or in the church by pastors. we joked that it was a "Paul's Greatest Hits" collection and all i could think of was Boston's first album and greatest hits being one in the same...
basically, what happens is that these lovely gems are taken out of context (as evident by all of them knowing the quotable verses) and people don't understand the purpose for Paul having written them. it's like reading the back cover of a novel and then the last page and deciding you know the whole story. (i actually refrained from even reading Paul's epistles for about 3 years because this happens so often with his writings, and i think that it gave me better perspective as to the purpose of Paul's writings in the bible; the gospel can sustain itself but he's supplemental reading.) what happens is quite evident in the church today: the division, the discrimination, the lack of godly vision, etc., etc. simply because people skim the jewels off the top that they can use immediately and fail to look at the whole picture. no big picture leaves you rather close-minded and the cycle continues...

i also struggle with the idea that people are too focused on heaven (or not wanting to go to hell). i think that i can definitely agree with Penn here, as his point seems to be that Christians don't often enjoy the life that they have here right now. and for this same part of the Christian culture that doesn't look at the big picture, it is usually true. so, i'm going to approach the idea of God wanting more for humanity in a different light: from what i can see, Penn is again looking at this large subset that you mentioned that do indeed "beg the invisible for more." being content with where/who we are now is definitely a large part of being faithful to Christ's teaching (again Paul puts this in the same letter mentioned earlier). "God wanting us to have more" is just the teaching that God has a plan for us. but as i see it, this plan is simply a relationship with him, nothing more nothing less; but with any relationship comes some shedding of some habits and gaining of new ones. this leads to us having "more" since, if you believe in the "God of Abraham," our creator will know how to best use the card dealt to each of us. to me, this is worth more than a ticket to heaven and i think better points to the shortcomings in Penn's argument; due to him picking this subset - and honestly not really doing his homework on the God-fearing faiths as evident in his delineation through forgiveness, acceptance, and suffering, although largely what Christianity is seen as today, to be his basis for there being "no God."

so basically, like Grant, i can agree that it's refreshing to hear someone start their debate in the search for truth with the idea that there simply is no sentient being that may lord over our very lives. however, the full arguments Penn uses only look at a part of the community of believers and not the basis of the faith itself as he should have. but to reiterate Grant's last statements, it's a better conversation. until then---