Duh, of course

The title question of one of Jonathan Merritt's most recent posts is so blatantly stupid I wasn't sure wether to bother commenting on it. In the end it was too ripe for ridicule to resist. "Have Americans made God in their image?" is yet another example of how willfully ignorant Merritt continues to be. Even the theists in fields like sociology, anthropology, and psychology have long since conceded that to some degree the cultural traits of a given society shape that society's views of God(s). Even when they are unwilling to admit that God is entirely a construction the admit that a great deal of projection goes into the concept. it also isn't a recently reached consensus. This understanding was establish before Merritt was even born.

I do understand that for Merritt the topic came up largely due to his interest in interviewing Matt Turner about his latest book that has this aspect of God as it's subject. He still selected Turner. He also does little to probe the author in any meaningful way. The interview doesn't come close to any new or even vaguely interesting insights. It seems designed more to make both men feel good about themselves. It is mostly unearned self-adulation. This topic has been written about repeatedly and in many instances with far greater depth.

If anyone is interested in the "American God" Froese and Bader's America's Four Gods is a much better choice. It is well researched and researched. It provides more insight and depth into this area theological 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.

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.