"Not What God Intends"

Karyn Wieseman's HuffPo piece, "Not What God Intends", is another example of the innate contradictions and/or self-delusions that exist within faith. Personally, I agree that society and life should be more peaceful but the conclusion that violence and conflict must be against God's intentions does not follow. There are a number of problems with Wieseman's line of thinking.

One of the biggest problems, theologically and philosophically, with her primary assertion is that it is not compatible with one of the main traits of Christianity. If Christianity really is monotheistic then God has to be perfect and all-powerful.* It logically follows that if God is all-powerful we cannot possibly have free will. Every detail of the universe is exactly as it has to be. It would literally be impossible for things to occur that are not caused by God. In this sense everything is as God intends it to be.

There is also the question of whether it is even possible for God to have intentions. To have intent you first have to have a mind. Does God have a mind? How is that possible? Most contemporary theologians don't agree on much but most seem to agree that God does not have a physical body. Since the mind is a product of the brain it seems unlikely that God has a mind from which to form let alone project intentions.

Even for the sake of argument simply accepting God has intentions and that somehow we mere mortals can defy God's will there is still another problem with Wieseman's assertion. How the fuck can imperfect beings possibly know what the intentions of a perfect being are?

I find it hard to believe that most religious people either understand what they claim to believe or believe them to the extent they want to think they do. Most religious concepts are either incoherent or contradictory.

*I've previously written about this. Some previous posts in which I have talked about this include "Monotheism and Morality" (12/10/11), "Monotheism and Christianity" (12/31/11), and "The Same God" (9/8/13).

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.

The Devil Made Him Do It

I had been intentionally avoiding commenting on the Batman shooting but after Longenecker posted on Patheos and then was the subject of other posts on both Patheos and Huffington Post I found it too difficult note to at least write something brief. The most recent piece I have had the misfortune to have read is actually a repost from Religion News Service, "Rev. Dwight Longenecker: James Holmes, Alleged Aurora Shooter, Was Possessed By A Demon"

Put bluntly, if you actually believe in the Devil, demonic possession, and similar nonsense, you are not only a dangerously deluded asshole you are also in all likelihood a hypocrite and a liar. Christians who accept that  Satan is a a real entity independent of God are not monotheists*. More importantly, they actively use scapegoats rather than accept responsibility. Not the type of individuals I would ever trust. If they can blame invisible forces whenever it suits them why should anyone ever trust or respect them?



* I posted something along this line previously. January 28, 2012's "What's the Surprise?"

Monotheism and Christianity

Even though many Christians assume that their religion is monotheistic by nature it is not. There are Christian monotheists but there are many sects/denominations within Christianity that are by their nature not monotheistic. Any fundamentalist or evangelical group that believes in a literal reading of the Bible is not monotheistic. Aside from the numerous passages that imply the existence of other gods, the acceptance of the devil as an independent being automatically negates any claim to being a monotheist

True monotheism requires that God be perfect and all powerful. To claim otherwise leaves room for the existence of other gods which by definition would contradict monotheism. If the devil is an independent entity with the ability to command evil forces and influence humans then the devil has some power. God, therefore, does not have all power and is not perfect. This god would then not be the one true god of monotheism. To be a monotheist requires the rejection of even the possibility of any other source of power beyond God.

It could also be debated as to whether any Christian individual or sect/denomination that accepts the idea of saints and/or angels is truly monotheistic. Whether you pray to or through a saint or angel, if it is accepted that they have power or influence of their own it would similarly negate the requirement that God be all powerful.

With these two scenarios in mind it may be more accurate to both belief and practice to consider groups of Christians to be dualistic or polytheistic. Most Christians would vehemently argue against this characterization but in all likelihood would ignore the contradictions at the heart of the argument. In some ways there are many who would have to ignore it. At least those who tend to view polytheism with contempt would find it necessary to do so.

Monotheism and Morality

I not only would disagree that religion is the best source of morality I would go so far as to say it is not a source of morality at all. I do not believe that people actually get their values and ethics from religion. Theists may believe that they do but if you examine what each religion's doctrines and scriptures pass off as moral lessons it becomes clear that they can not be where individual believers are actually getting their morals. There is a huge disconnect even among the more fundamentalist theists. All believers interpret and pick and choose what they accept and apply.

In regard to monotheism I do not even accept that it is possible to gain morals from faith. I see monotheism as being amoral by its nature. I would emphasize that is amoral not immoral. I am in no way implying that monotheists lack morals, they do not. Most monotheists I know have excellent values and ethics. Despite what they themselves see as the source I would argue that it is not from their faith.

As I see it, to have morality requires two main components; knowledge of right and wrong and the ability to act on that knowledge. Monotheism fails on both counts. God as portrayed in scriptures is a hideous and quite hypocritical monster. The more abstract version of the God concept is too amorphous to be of any practical use. The moment you contemplate this God beyond a very basic definition you ended up running into all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions. The more you attempt to describe/explain the more limitations you place on God. Since God is supposedly perfect this is self-defeating. I fail to see how such a vague and frequently divisive concept can lead to any practical knowledge of right and wrong.

It is also difficult to see how any true monotheist would have the ability to act on any knowledge they do gain about right and wrong. I do not see that the concept of free will is in any way compatible with the concept of God. This, of course, assumes God being defined as perfect and all powerful. Despite claims to the contrary, such a God would negate the notion of free will. For God to grant free will would require giving up both omnipotence and omniscience but that would immediately negate God itself by definition. An individual can not act in a way that is contrary to God. Since theists can not act contrary to God they have no free will and no responsibility. Basically, if God exist we are merely meat puppets. If you can not choose and can not be responsible you can not be either moral or immoral. Each theist simply is and must do what God has determined.

Theists like atheist gain their ethics and values from a wide variety of sources. Genetics, environment, socio-cultural factors, and parenting among others all play a role. And yes, indirectly religion as an aspect of culture and social interaction can play a role. It is not, however, the religion in itself but rather the ways the individual adherents interact.

Monotheism is amoral.