Annoyance

You wrote:

A scientist will tell you that taking a personal interest in an indifferent phenomenon is his (or her) life’s work. They’ll also go on to tell you that if you’re only interested in a God that is interested in you then you are applying a selection effect.

I would suggest that the difference is akin to studying love as a clinical third-person observer versus experiencing love with another. The former may be clinical and scientific and require no response from the subject; the latter is only really possible when the interest and care is deeply reciprocal.

There's another example, and it's more pertinent to the Christian faith: university theologians. Many of the theologians at the big-name universities like Harvard and Princeton (and probably Oxford and Cambridge as well) are quite knowledgeable about the theology that has developed over time regarding God, but do not know him at all. In fact many are admitted atheists. Their study of God appears to be indifferently scientific ... based on the available scholarship and archeology.

Note: I'm not dismissing the scientific approach. It is suited to many things. But not all things.

You wrote:

“I would be interested in God if He were an impersonal being; however it really appears to me that He is not. Quite annoying really” :-)

I think you've touched upon something quite significant here. One of the attractive features of the non-Christian belief systems is that they often do not require anything truly significant of the follower. Most of those traditions -- or, I should say, the present day manifestations of those traditions, after having been reshaped -- are really all about serving the follower, not the other way around. Sure, there are elements of commitment to the higher being, but usually in the form of legalistic practices and rituals, and often they are not really that demanding.

Note: in fairness, a large portion of today's Christianity is also this way. It has become in some circles little more than a self-help program. "Be a Christian and be happy." Or, "Send money and enjoy God's bountiful riches in return." Mankind can take anything and turn it around to be a tool of selfish pursuits.

This is where the God of the Bible is utterly different. He is, as you write with regard to whether he is impersonal: "it appears to me that He is not." And your rejoinder is perfect: "Quite annoying, really." I suspect the personal nature of the True God is something that is enormously annoying to many. I suspect that is why many respond to the subject of Jesus Christ with anything between mild antipathy to violent opposition.

Several years ago, when I was still seeking, I read a book by John R. W. Stott called "Basic Christianity." The title is a misnomer -- the book is anything but a "...for Dummies" book. The book had an enormous impact on me. One of the chapters was titled, "Counting the Costs," and had to do with the depth of the commitment involved with being a follower of Christ. One sentence stays with me and will forever: "Jesus never hid the fact that the offer came with a demand, and the demand was a complete as the offer was free."

Annoying ... very annoying indeed. :-)

Brilliant point, deep.thought. Perfect word. Spot on.