"Whatever we cannot easily understand we call God; this saves much wear and tear on the brain tissues."
Edward Abbey
Vox Clamantis In Deserto (A Voice Crying in the Wild)
Saturday, October 15, 2011
One Conclusion from Two Versions
One of the criticisms frequently leveled at Atheists is that we simply don't understand who/what God is. I say this assessment is bullshit for two reasons. I would argue that atheists in general have spent far more time and effort analyzing the God concept than the average theist. I also have observed that even those theists who have come to realize there are two main versions of the God concept tend to mix them together without realizing they are doing so. Two recent articles on Huffington Post seem to have had this unacknowledged amalgamation at their center. Both "Killing the Church by Denigrating the Immediacy of God" and "'God Is': From Biblical Literalism To A Mystical Understanding of God" seem to imply that one of the biggest problems in religion today is that not enough people think in terms of an abstract version of God.
Personally, I would love to see theists move in that direction. It would put people one step closer to giving up the absurd concept entirely. When you exam the more abstract version it becomes clear that it is just as contradictory and is even more irrelevant to our lives. Once you move away from the personal/scripture based God the question should arise; what are you worshiping and why? It can no longer be a who. The most common construct of this abstract God is easier to define in terms of what it is not rather than what it is. For that reason the simplified definition is the most useful. If God is accepted as Perfection and the Eternal you immediately run into all manner of difficulty with virtually every other religiously based concepts. If God is an abstraction it can not be a Being. All entities have a mind. Since all minds are generated by a physical brain it is not an abstraction. In this way God can not consciously do anything. God can not have intentions and did not actively or knowing create anything. It is also impossible to see rationally how an abstract can physically intervene in our reality.
Critics who insist they are following a more sophisticated abstract God are really mixing different versions. They refuse to reevaluate the possible roles/functions of God in light of what a purely abstract concept entails.
It is clear that they are doing so since most of these "modern" theologians still endorse the standard rites and rituals of their chosen religion. Why? Even if you assumed God has a mind, as an abstract that is highly unlikely, God being perfection itself leaves no room such notions as free will. Everything is exactly as it has to be or else perfection is a myth. No mistakes or corrections/alterations can be tolerated. It is also, for argument sake, not likely that religious practices have any bearing on anything. How could they? Such practices can not have an impact on anything since everything is exactly as it has to be. Also, assuming God has a mind and is perfect and all powerful God would have to be aware of precisely what an individual's thoughts, feelings, and intentions are which makes such actions redundant at best.
Critics of atheists have always projected their own misunderstandings on us. This is nothing new. It is to some degree amusing that when they talk about our lack of insight that they then get angry (another accusation falsely projected on us) when we challenge them to demonstrate their own insights. They have a tendency to quickly shift definitions and rationalize the inevitable inconsistencies and contradictions. The truth is that the level of thought involved in analyzing the God concept among theists has never gone beyond the superficial. I have yet to encounter any philosopher or theologian among theists willing to follow the God concept in either of its two main versions to its logical conclusion: a construct that ultimately has no relevance to reality.
Personally, I would love to see theists move in that direction. It would put people one step closer to giving up the absurd concept entirely. When you exam the more abstract version it becomes clear that it is just as contradictory and is even more irrelevant to our lives. Once you move away from the personal/scripture based God the question should arise; what are you worshiping and why? It can no longer be a who. The most common construct of this abstract God is easier to define in terms of what it is not rather than what it is. For that reason the simplified definition is the most useful. If God is accepted as Perfection and the Eternal you immediately run into all manner of difficulty with virtually every other religiously based concepts. If God is an abstraction it can not be a Being. All entities have a mind. Since all minds are generated by a physical brain it is not an abstraction. In this way God can not consciously do anything. God can not have intentions and did not actively or knowing create anything. It is also impossible to see rationally how an abstract can physically intervene in our reality.
Critics who insist they are following a more sophisticated abstract God are really mixing different versions. They refuse to reevaluate the possible roles/functions of God in light of what a purely abstract concept entails.
It is clear that they are doing so since most of these "modern" theologians still endorse the standard rites and rituals of their chosen religion. Why? Even if you assumed God has a mind, as an abstract that is highly unlikely, God being perfection itself leaves no room such notions as free will. Everything is exactly as it has to be or else perfection is a myth. No mistakes or corrections/alterations can be tolerated. It is also, for argument sake, not likely that religious practices have any bearing on anything. How could they? Such practices can not have an impact on anything since everything is exactly as it has to be. Also, assuming God has a mind and is perfect and all powerful God would have to be aware of precisely what an individual's thoughts, feelings, and intentions are which makes such actions redundant at best.
Critics of atheists have always projected their own misunderstandings on us. This is nothing new. It is to some degree amusing that when they talk about our lack of insight that they then get angry (another accusation falsely projected on us) when we challenge them to demonstrate their own insights. They have a tendency to quickly shift definitions and rationalize the inevitable inconsistencies and contradictions. The truth is that the level of thought involved in analyzing the God concept among theists has never gone beyond the superficial. I have yet to encounter any philosopher or theologian among theists willing to follow the God concept in either of its two main versions to its logical conclusion: a construct that ultimately has no relevance to reality.
Premarital Sex and Religious Delusions
A recent post on CNN's Belief blog, "Why Young Christians aren't waiting anymore", seems to have fallen for one of the favorite myths of the Christian Right. As the nation slowly but steadily shifts to a more secular outlook the nations morals have not really changed that much. Even if, premarital sex is an indicator of lax morals, there is nothing to indicate that the rates of sexual activity among the unmarried have changed in any statistically significant way. In general Christians are no different than any other identifiable group when it comes to sexual activity*. They may come across as more repressed and tend to deny publicly having sexual relations but that is not the same as actually abstaining. Maybe young Christians are becoming more honest and accepting of reality, at least as it relates to sexual behavior.
* Among conservative Christians there are actually some statistical differences when compared to more liberal Christians. Conservatives have higher rates of teen sex, teen pregnancies, and STDs in their general population (teens and adults). Conservatives also tend to have higher criminal rates related to sexual activity and personal relationships. They exceed their more liberal counterparts in rates of incest, adultery, domestic abuse, and rape.
* Among conservative Christians there are actually some statistical differences when compared to more liberal Christians. Conservatives have higher rates of teen sex, teen pregnancies, and STDs in their general population (teens and adults). Conservatives also tend to have higher criminal rates related to sexual activity and personal relationships. They exceed their more liberal counterparts in rates of incest, adultery, domestic abuse, and rape.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
God's Approval Rating
Yes, God has an approval rating. The most recent (September/October 2011) "Given The Evidence" feature in Humanist magazine includes some rather odd polling/survey results. According to Public Policy Polling God has a 52% job performance approval rating. Later in the piece they cite Gallup results that indicate 92% of Americans believe in the existence of God. Anyone else see the problem with these numbers? If you really believe in God how do you come up with an approval rating at all? The supreme being hardly seems like the kind of entity you'd want to piss off. Rating a president is one thing but a being that knows your every thought and can do anything is not a being you want to cross? How do even begin to evaluate an entity like that assuming doing so is a good idea? Most ratings are essentially comparisons. What do you compare God to?
Is my wise ass crack about God as the ultimate deadbeat dad (October 1st blog post) not far off the mark from how theists view the Supreme being? Is it a matter of theist not thinking through what they really believe and why or is it that they don't believe as much as they claim to? It just seems odd and disturbingly amusing that people who accept a perfect and all powerful being and then turn around and express disappointment in that very being's competence. Has the thought not occurred that if there is even a possibility of being dissatisfied with God's performance it would by its nature indicate that God is not perfect? Not perfect = not God. Perhaps that 48% need to re-evaluate their views on God.
Is my wise ass crack about God as the ultimate deadbeat dad (October 1st blog post) not far off the mark from how theists view the Supreme being? Is it a matter of theist not thinking through what they really believe and why or is it that they don't believe as much as they claim to? It just seems odd and disturbingly amusing that people who accept a perfect and all powerful being and then turn around and express disappointment in that very being's competence. Has the thought not occurred that if there is even a possibility of being dissatisfied with God's performance it would by its nature indicate that God is not perfect? Not perfect = not God. Perhaps that 48% need to re-evaluate their views on God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)