Funny but still misleading

This appeared on Facebook not too long ago. Though it is rather amusing it is also very misleading and inaccurate. In most instances people don't object to a "concept." I certainly don't object to the concept of God. It's actually a rather fascinating one. I do object to how the concept is often used. I also object to the notion that it is a concept that has any basis in reality. You can see how significant this difference is if you simply insert something that is more commonly accepted as fiction in place of "a deity." For example, I find Puff-The-Magic-Dragon to be a pretty cool fictional character. I would even be fine if people wanted to emulate some of this characters accepted values. I would strongly object to anyone tryiong to tell me to do or not do something because it's what Puff wants, or rather what they claim Puff wants.

No, the concept in and of itself is not something that needs to be opposed. You can, of course, argue whether it has any merits. It is far more important to pay attention to what beliefs people accept, reject, or project based on a given concept.

An Apt Corollary

A recent CNN Belief blog post by Matthew Paul Turner, "5 ways America changed God", seems to pair quite nicely with Jonathan Merritt's "Have American's made God in their image." Had these been written as speculative pieces by non-belivers as a way to explore the variations of the "God" concept they might not have been so preposterous. But they weren't. I pointed out how foolish Merritt's piece was in my own post "Duh, of course" (August 31, 2014) and many of those points are equally true of Turner's. I would, however, go even further. Turner unintentionally brings up aspects of the God concept that are innate contradictions.

As a supreme being it seems a bit ludicrous that such fallible limit creature like human being could have even a slight affect on such an entity. To change God implies quite a lot of power on our part. But, wait, isn't the supreme being "all-powerful"? How can humans have any power if God has all the power. Yes, it is true Turner is largely talking about perceptions and interpretations but not entirely. There are implications that God might be changeable. Even internally this is inconsistent and contradictory. God is supposed to be eternal and perfect. How can you change from a state of perfection without becoming imperfect? It is a conundrum that cannot be resolved without dismantling God.

It also seems a bit myopic to, even superficially, focus on America. Doesn't every culture have some variation of the the God concept. Haven't those variations been subject to a variety of interpretations over time. The ideas Turner ascribes to America are not original or unique to America. His summary of American relgious history is as pointless as it is brief. It seems to be little more than a handful of examples wandering around in the hope of finding some cohesive theme to bind them all together.

One Misunderstanding?

The title of Neil Walsch's HuffPo piece, "Our One Misunderstanding About God", made me laugh quite a bit. He actually seems to think he has boiled down the various disagreements and contradictory assertions about God to one thing. Theists think too primitively. While I don't completely disagree with that idea it is far too simplistic and definitive. Once you cut through all Walsch's touchy-feely new age crap it isn't hard to figure out that he suffers from a very basic misunderstanding himself. He does not seem to realize that the God concept has more than one version. Part of why he fails to note, let alone think critically, about this is that he never really acknowledges that there isn't even a single agreed upon definition for God. Sorry Neil but there are lost of misunderstanding and there will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Setting aside most of the ideas and beliefs attached to a the personal scripture based God won't be an end to the concept's confusion and misunderstanding.

Is "God" the Source of All Things, or Not?

I'm going back to yet another one of my refrains. It seems to be necessary to revisit a number of comments I've made since theists never seem to learn or accept. Theists really do not appear to believe, at least not to the extent they think, even a fraction of what they claim. Connor Wood has once again scribbled some rather idiotic drivel on his poorly named Science on Religion blog. The title alone,"Religion makes you prejudiced. God doesn’t.", should make any critical thinker shudder with its stupidity.

Initially, it is possible to cut him some slack. The God concept isn't really of a single version. However, the first sentence of the second paragraph clearly states, "We’re not talking about a living Abrahamic God, though – instead, we’re talking about the semantic concept of God." Since he is writing about the more abstract version of the God concept what little wiggle room he would have had vanishes. The moment you accept the notion that God is the supreme being and therefore both perfect and all-powerful the title becomes a rather foolish and deluded contradiction. God must be the source of absolutely everything. If prejudice exists, and it certainly does, then God is the source.

Whether theists like it or not the belief in God's perfection places all responsibility with God. Whether something is good, bad, or indifferent does not matter. If it exists then it is the result of God. Whether "religion makes you prejudiced" or not is a moot point in the face of the abstract version of the God concept. God would automatically be the source of both religion and prejudice equally.

As is often the case, Mr. Wood can't even manage to apply the most basic principles of critical thinking and logic. The whole piece is just another example of how little theists understand their own beliefs or bother to think beyond the most superficial approach to "reason."

"God's will" is our will

Timothy Dalrymple's recent Philosophical Fragments post is loaded with not only fragments but lots of philosophical holes. "Mistaking God's Will for Our Own" has numerous problems in its logic. He fails at establishing a basic premise to start with. How can any human or group of humans even come close to determining what God's will is? He himself notes that we are imperfect while God is perfect but fails to take that notion to the next logical step. We can't know "God's will." In practice God's will has to be our will. It can never be anything more than our own biases and interpretations that creates this "will." So form start to finish God's will is our will. If that is a mistake then it is an innate mistake that cannot be otherwise.

This, of course, only matters if you fail to see the huge assumption underlying the whole argument: God exists. No one has yet provided any proof that God actually exists. Basically God is a human fabrication and therefore leads to the same conclusion anyway. God's will is our will. Religious people can dress it up in any number of arguments they want but the result is the same. Theists choose to believe in God just like they choose the type of God they prefer and the "religious experience" they want. God and religion are a convenient set of ideas that can be used to reinforce and justify what individuals and groups want to be true whether they are or not.

The Same God?

The question of whether Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God is both revealing and foolish*. Though it is true that each has their own interpretations and ways of worship their is no logical way around the basic theology each claims to follow. Each claims to be monotheistic therefore they must worship the same God. How can they believe otherwise without inadvertently admitting to a false belief. Accusing the other "monotheists" of following a false god is incoherent. There can be no other god, false or otherwise, or even a god-like being under monotheism since such a system of belief would require the one true god to be all-powerful.

Basically, if each truly believes in monotheism then they must follow the same god. That they question routinely comes up seem to indicate that many theists aren't nearly as confident in their beliefs as they'd like to think. 

*Jeffrey Weiss' CNN Belief blog post, "Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?", is recent example of this recurring question.

If You Have to Talk Yourself into It....

While reading Sarah O'Leary's "12 Reasons Why God is Nice" I got the distinct impression that she wasn't really writing something for others to think about. It sounded more like an attempt to convince herself of things she feels she should and/or wants to believe. In any case, her rationalizations are as naive as they are ridiculous. Nearly all of her twelve "reasons" outright conflict with the most basic definition of God. This is, of course, without establishing whether she accepts the Bible as having any authority or not. If O'Leary accepts the Bible even on symbolic terms her reasons become even more tortured but I'll set that aside.

Sticking with the basic definition that God is the supreme being who is perfect, all-powerful, and the creator of all things all but a few of her 12 reasons fall apart after only the slightest scrutiny.

1.God is NICE, 4.God loves everyone, 5.God doesn't get angry, or hold grudges, 11.God is a huge fan of kindness, compassion and generosity
In each of these O'Leary relies predominantly on the assumption that God has emotional states. How can that be the case when emotions are most certainly flawed. In order for God to experience emotions such a being would have to be flawed and therefore by definition not be God. It can not occur otherwise and still be an emotion. Human emotions are largely understood and experienced in comparison with other known emotion so you cannot have a perfect emotion. Her #1 is also interesting since it seems to imply that there can be no connection between God and hate. Where does hate come from? Wouldn't this suggest that God is not the source of all things?

A few of the above also share a few aspects in common with the next set I found to be inter-related.
2.God doesn't want us to feel threatened by Him, 6. God wants us to find peace, and be happy, 7. God doesn't like people who act like they are closer to Him than the rest of us
These all depend on the idea that God wants or doesn't want us to feel certain ways or  to behave in specific ways. The biggest problem with this formulation comes from the notion of "want." If we as humans want something what does that really mean? Either we lack something or we do not have enough of something. If you have that something then you don't want it. More to the point you can't really want it if you already have it since that would be a contradiction of terms. If God is both perfect and the source of all things what can God possibly want? Nothing.

Again, the above leads into the next point which regards free will. God doesn't have to want anything because everything that is, is a direct result of God. This is also true of our behaviors. If God exists there can be no free will since that would negate God's perfection. God is all knowing and therefore would know what was, is, and will be. God cannot lack any knowledge and still remain perfect. Similarly, as the source of all things God would also be the author of all our ideas and behaviors which means the following are pretty much null and void.
3. God isn't a control freak, 8. God is the only one wearing a watch that matters, 9. God doesn't keep a score.
I should probably clarify #9. Without free will there is no morality which means we really can't be held responsible in any meaningful way. Any ideas about a final judgement with preceding punishments or rewards is moot.

Only two of her reasons cannot be completely refuted by definition.
10. God isn't relaxing in Heaven, He's everywhere, 12. God never leaves us
Even if you are a believer the last two standing are not all that impressive considering how vague and superficial they are. It seems somewhat redundant and unnecessary. To my way of thinking it is the equivalent of simply stating that existence exists. Yes, it does. And? Where is this train of thought going? You have to take the statement further otherwise what is the point of making it.

O'Leary concludes with,
"I believe God lives in our human-to-human connections. The God that is in us is the love that feeds us.
Yes, I'm certain, God is Nice."
It is a pleasant enough sentiment but where does she want to go with it? It really does seem to be a sort of motivational letter to herself.

G Word

I agree with Philip Goldberg that it is quite interesting to explore what people really mean when they use the word God. However, I'm not as convinced that "the G-word has undergone a radical change in recent decades." I think theists and atheists alike have always used the term in varied ways. He references a few sources that are well worth reading and even provides links to them. There are a wide range of materials that are excellent for spurring further thought on the concept of God. At this point I'd like to recommend two books in particular.

Andrew Pessin's The God Question provides a wonderful overview. I read it a few years ago and have re-read it a few times since. The only thing that would have made it better was if he had added in a few choice excerpts from the works he references.

Froese and Bader's America's Four Gods provides a very readable and fascinating analysis. Personally, I would divide the God concept into two fairly broad versions: concrete and abstract. I tended to think of their four as fairly distinct variations that contain elements of both but with each leaning towards one or the other.

Whether you believe or not the concept of God with all its variations and implications is an interesting topic of study.

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)

This is probably one of, if not the, most quoted and used passages from the New Testament. In many ways it is a quintessential passage of Christianity. As it relates to contemporary Christianity it is also one of the most damning passages for modern theologians. It epitomizes the incoherent irreconcilable contradiction that is at the heart of many theologians definition and understanding of God. Many of these theologians insist that atheist criticisms are unfounded in part because God is more abstract than we are willing to accept. Aside from that being a false assertion, it exposes their own muddled thinking. None of these same theologians have ever distanced themselves or their faith from this passage.

Read it again and then think about what it is saying. It clearly indicates that God had a physical son. How can something that is an abstraction have physical offspring? It would have to at least have a physical component. That would mean it is subject to the same laws of nature that all other physical material is subject to. God would be fair game for scientific inquiry. This is, of course, refuted by most contemporary theologians. They insist that as an abstract force or essence it is outside the realm of science. Bullshit. If God has a physical presence then there is no reason such an entity should not be quantifiable. Without a physical presence John 3:16 loses its meaning. Jesus cannot be the "begotten Son" if God is purely an abstraction.

There is another problem with this approach. If God is an abstraction then there are other reasons to doubt such a concept has any independent existence. Many contemporary Christians are also fond of such defining phrases as, "God is Love." Its a nice sentiment and I in no way doubt the existence of Love. However, it does not exist in the same way a person does. In point of fact, Love and similar abstractions can only exist while sentient beings do. It is a product of our minds, of our personal interactions. Anything that is that abstract can not have an independent existence. Basically, this line of reasoning would lead to God being a construct of our minds that can only continue to "exist" within our minds. God could not exist where there are no minds. God could only be experienced through sentient beings.

Essentially, God would no longer be divine. God would be a natural phenomenon no different than any other emotion, experience, or construct produced by our brains.

Talk about Illusions

Why do so many religious bloggers and theologians have such difficulty with definitions and the application of definitions? Eitan Press' July 5th post, "Lose Your Illusions and Find Infinity: A Jewish Mystical Take on Atheism and God " is so absurd it is comical. It seems that he doesn't like any of the standard definitions for "God" but can't come up with a coherent one himself. So what does he do? Rather than consider that the concept is by it's nature bullshit he creates a series of fallacious dodges.

It starts at the end of the second paragraph paragraph and dribbles into the third with, "So what do I mean when I say 'God'? I can't tell you, because its not something I can put into words. The word 'water' doesn't make you wet, but you know what it's referring to. This is not the case with the word 'God.'"This bit of nonsense set the tone wonderfully. His example is about as inappropriate and misleading as you can get. Of course we know what water is. Water is all around us. We need it to live and we can quantify it quite easily. For the record, the substance designated by the term "water" does make us wet. God on the other hand doesn't seem to be anywhere or not in a way that matters to those who prefer reality over illusion. Had a cup of God recently? It gets even loopier.

Two paragraphs later he opens with this gem, "God is beyond any concept. God is beyond even the concept of beyond." What the fuck?I don't think he gets the concept of "concept." According to Chambers 21st Century Dictionary a concept is a, "a notion; an abstract or general idea." So if god is not an idea how do we think or talk about God? For that matter how can God have any connection to reality if it does not even count as an idea. Try thinking about anything you know to exist in reality that cannot also be thought of in terms of an idea(s).

Press never seems to consider that if what he is writing has any validity then his writing about it is futile and meaningless. It is a bit of a contradiction. It certainly never dawns on him that perhaps he can't come up with an adequate description or set of terms because there is literally nothing there to attach them to. This seems to be a fairly common approach among many contemporary theologians. Either you constantly introduce slightly altered and highly abstract definitions of God or you claim there can be no true definition for God. They do it without ever acknowledging that once something becomes too abstract it loses any and all practical meaning. Not only the word "God" but also the concept of God becomes worthless.

This piece goes on longer but never gets anymore coherent or insightful. The only illusion apparent is his own. As for "taking on atheism", I don't get any sense that he has ever actually paid attention to any atheists. He clearly has no idea what our objections to the God concept actually are let alone thought about them for ven a matter of a few minutes.

God is in the Brain, Sort of

Douglas Fields makes some decent points throughout his short Huffington Post piece, "Is God in the Brain?" However, roughly half way through he ends up giving in to various common fallacies. Despite pointing out earlier that science and religion take opposite approaches he weakens an otherwise decent post with such nonsensical statements as, "Science and religion are different worlds, but fundamentally they are not antagonistic..." First, we only have one world. Even if you take this metaphorically it is still silly. He points out in an earlier sentence that religion relies on faith. How can baseless opinions be used to accurately "explore and comprehend the world around us"? In the second place, if two approaches are opposites by nature, which Fields does imply, how can they not be antagonistic?

Shortly after this he adds that, "One would not look to scripture for the secrets of subatomic particles, but having discovered nuclear energy through the scientific method, one would not look to science for answers about how to use it." Really? Without sound scientific information you want to create policies concerning something that is potentially lethal? It seems to me that a greater understanding of how such particles work is what you need to figure out how to use them.

He ends his piece in a tone that is nearly the opposite of its opening. He seems to give up all pretense at critical thought for the sake of an overly sentimental notion devoid of any merit.

"Yes, Mr. President, you can see God in the brain; just as you can see it in the hand of a child or in a stunningly beautiful sunset that steals one's breath."  Actually, the beauty argument for God's existence is among the weakest. It has been picked apart and trashed so thoroughly that it still amazes me than anyone with half a brain tries to trot it out so regularly. As for the Brain, yes you can see God there but only in terms of how we construct and use concepts. This, of course, makes God as real as Puff the Magic Dragon or Papa Smurf. Mention either of these two characters to anyone my age or older and odds are they know exactly what is being talked about. They could probably give a more detailed description of either of them than they could for God. They may even have some rather warm and fuzzy feelings about them. Does that mean they are more real than God?

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.

"Soulful Atheist"? Really?!

Like so much of what gets put up on Huffington Post this latest from Dori Hartley made me laugh for a good five minutes or more. I'm not sure if what amused me was that she seemed to think what she was writing was so profound or that she was so clueless about every label and concept she threw around. She is, put bluntly, not "The Soulful Atheist" for the simple reason that she is not an atheist at all. Her own words clearly demonstrate that she is not an atheist.

"I do not represent any particular way of thinking, other than my own. And as an 'atheist,' I can tell you this:
I pray.
I have faith.
I believe in the cosmic consciousness.
I live in gratitude.
I am moved to tears by the beauty that is nature.
I feel the intensity of great love."

"Cosmic consciousness"? Sounds like the abstract version of God to me. Hartley may not believe in the God of scripture but that is only one version of the God concept. She doesn't seem to realize that the concept is not limited to that one interpretation. She goes on to dismiss other aspects of a more personal scripture based deity while clinging to the notion of a higher divine consciousness. She also goes on to muddle a number of other definitions and concepts like faith, energy, prayer, spirituality, militant...

Whatever else she wants to claim she is definitely not an atheist. She does not seem to get that despite there being very little that makes a person an atheist, really only one thing, belief in a supreme being definitely prevents you from being one. It doesn't matter how you define such a supernatural being since it is still the same basic concept, God.

Personally, I would probably label Hartley a new age spiritualist. She may come to realize that you don't have to belong to a denomination or church or even stick to one definition of God in order to remain a theist. I wouldn't mind her using the label atheist as long as she stopped associating so much supernatural crap with the term.