When you think of God, what images come to mind?
Do you think of a supernatural being who sits outside the four dimensional (space + time) universe who created us as a potter might? Do you picture God as a supreme designer who built the intricate laws of the universe as a watchmaker assembles a fine timepiece? Do you see God as a grand chess master who has an elaborate plan for the figures on his cosmic chessboard? Do you imagine the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, where the outstretched hand of Michelangelo's God (who looks like someone's muscular grandfather!) reaches toward Adam?
Many popular images of God resemble a Zeus-like figure, who lives in "heaven" rather than on Olympus. When we think about it, this God seems a lot like us, only much more powerful. He has emotions: he can be a "jealous God"; he can be an "angry God" or a "loving God." We may address him as Father, Lord, or Judge. We even use the personal (and masculine) pronoun "He" in referring to God, but we capitalize it to show that "He" is greater than we are.
In other words this God is strongly anthropomorphic, a Greek word whose roots mean "human" and "form." In the fifth century BC, Greek philosopher Xenophanes wrote, "If horses had gods, they would look like horses."
To me these classical images of God are fraught with problems. As a teenager, when my interest in science blossomed, I began to question the theology I had been taught as a child. Why would God allow millions of children to starve in Africa or die in a genocide, yet "He" just might intervene on behalf of our favorite sports team if we prayed hard enough? Why is it that two and three thousand years ago (when human understanding of science was very different than it is today) during the age of the Biblical writers, God seemed to intervene in the world a great deal more than he does today: causing worldwide floods, parting seas, speaking from burning bushes, stopping the sun from moving across the sky, raising dead people, and sending angels to earth to deliver his message?
The common view of God as a supernatural being like us, only more powerful, is one of the principal reasons behind the rise of atheism in the Western world and the spiritual apathy of many young people today. It certainly contributed to my own questioning of the usefulness of religion. This view of God opens itself up to critiques from the likes of eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume who pointed out the logical fallacies in the traditional arguments for the existence of God, Sigmund Freud who characterized such a God as nothing more than a "projected father figure," and twenty-first century biologist Richard Dawkins who points out the incompatibility of this God with science.
Our modern lifestyles depend on scientific principles working, not some of the time, but all of the time: would you fly in an airplane if the laws of aerodynamics only worked occasionally? We take for granted the physics behind our cell phones and TVs. We understand that solar eclipses are not a divine omen in which God turns day into night, but are predictable astronomical events caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth. We have faith in the biological principles that allow for the medicines we create to treat our diseases - diseases that we understand today are not caused by evil spirits or divine punishment but by bacteria, viruses, and biochemical processes.
In this post-modern age in which reason and science underlie every aspect of our daily lives, which concept will lose out in the battle between God and science? I think we are seeing (unfortunately) that God is losing this battle.
Even more problematic than the incompatibility of the classical view of God with modern scientific and logical thought is that this God opens "Himself" up to the critique of being an incompetent watchmaker, an unartistic potter, and a cruel chess master. The world we live in is a messy, complicated, imperfect place, ripe with tragedy, sickness, and injustice. The traditional view of God leads to the philosophical problems caused by the existence of evil, the reality of human suffering, and the multiple religions around the world with opposing doctrines about God. How can such a God be omniscient, omnipotent, and loving at the same time?
Finally, for me, the ultimate critique of this God is that "He" is too small. A God that is seen as some kind of intelligent being living in an extra-dimensional heaven becomes just one more thing in the universe (although a powerful thing nonetheless). A God that chooses when to tinker in the workings of the universe and when not to is not only capricious but begs the question of why God didn't make things right the first time around? In other words, this God is finite.
Does this critique of our traditional understanding of God mean that the only alternative is the atheist one?
That is what writers like Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris want us to believe. I actually agree with much of their criticism of religion, but ultimately, I think that the version of God they are trying to disprove is nothing more than a straw-man.
As much as my rational mind wanted to reject God, something deep in my core sensed a fundamental meaning to existence. What I needed was a different way to conceive of God that didn't require me to close my eyes to scientific knowledge, to reason, and to personal experience. How could I be true to both my intellect and my soul: my mind that must see the world in logical terms and my heart which yearns for a greater spiritual connection? In my next post, I'll explain how my current view of God attempts to reconcile these seemingly conflicting goals. But for now, I'm interested to hear from you.
How then do you think about God in a way that works in the 21st century?
Follow Jeffrey Small on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeffreysmalljr
God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anthropomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anthropomorphism - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity
On pages 157-158 of "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins summarized what he called the central argument of his book, but once you weed through his premises, you discover his claim is that the most ingenious and powerful explanation for the appearance of biological design is Darwinian evolution by natural selection, therefore God almost certainly does not exist. However, all he has shown here is that the design argument from biological complexity may fail. Since his line of reasoning contributes nothing to his conclusion, the central argument of his book is irrational.
Belief in God is backed by a case based on sound reasons for theism. In the real world, reason, science, and morality all point to God's existence, so much so that Christians can speak with confidence.
Well, if there is no evidence that God exists, then someone needs to tell Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins (and all other atheists) that they are wasting their time attempting to disprove nothing.
"Writers like Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris want us to believe that the critique of our traditional understanding of God mean that the only alternative is the atheist one." If you believe that you have not read Dawkins or Harris. Harris flatly rejects the Atheist label and even delivered an epic speech entitled "The Problem with Atheism" at the '07 Atheist Alliance International conference (with Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennet all in the audience) Which Dawkins still hosts on his website. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1702 where he tells all the Atheists of the world that it's a big mistake to identify yourself as an Atheist.
Dawkins claims to believe in Einstein's God, which Einstein said was Spinozza's god (little 'g') which is Nature, which means both Einstien and Dawkins are Pantheists, not Atheists.
Einstein flatly rejected the Atheist label, just like Harris, for many of the same reasons as Harris, it's just trading one eogic, dogmatic ideology for another form of herd mentality and egoism.
The grand irony of religious evolution.
Dawkins, like any smart person knows God is a completely unverifiable, unfalsifiable concept. He knows trying to disprov God is a giant waste of time. Instead he focuses on showing us things that are true, which I find a very refrshing attitude.
(Apologies for any typos, I'm on a mac keyboard at the moment)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
God has long been anthropomorphised, for lack of a better word, as this giant invisible human up in the sky who is replete with all the neurotic aberrations of a power mad, absolute, and cruel dictator. This is a wicked perversion of the truth, again done by humans, by editing the Bible, in order to suit their agenda. I have no room here, but there is plenty of history supporting this, particularly when the ruling remnants of the Roman Empire integrated with naive and unsophisticated Christians at the time of the Roman Empire's collapse. These men applied their system to the Christian Church.
Without intervention and a general straightening out of this literal destruction, people did independent thinking, became angry, and rejected their religions. Without a viable alternative, many of them became outright atheists.
They do this in an attempt bolster their credibility. Yet the contrary is true. Not even Biblical scholars can claim they have read and studied the Bible and now have a definitive answer. Further, not many of them (if any) can claim they have read all of it and studied all of it. Most specialize in certain portions of the text.
So teabagger-atheists. Lay off the Bible. You may have read some of it off your "bibleisevil" website, yet you understand very little.
I agree. In a superficial way, one can make the Bible back up any argument. But that is not the message.
I agree. Atheists attempt to us the Bible to serve their purposes in several ways. First, they ignore the entire purpose of the Bible, who wrote it & why & for whom. By doing this, they try to re-purpose it & then critique it based on their re-purpose. For example, they claim that the Bible is an inaccurate & incomplete scientific origin of the species textbook. Well, of course. It wasn't written for this purpose. 2) They take passages out of their historical & cultural & narrative context One of their favorites is the story of Sodom & Gomorrah where they treat the accounts of the horrific things that happened as if they are spiritual/moral advice & then fail to discuss how the story ends with God's destruction of the cities because they were so wicked. 3) They lift traditional practices of the ancient Hebrews out of the Old Testament, such as the stoning of adulteresses without also telling what Jesus taught about this practice in the Gospels. I can go on, but you get the idea. You're correct that they ignore the Bible's message.
Please I invite you to enlighten us all. I grew up with your same beliefs. In fact I studied the Bible exstensively for 18 years of my life on into seminary.
1. Who wrote the Bible? Humans. Beyond that we truly have no way of knowing exactly who. None. I can assure you though, God did not write the Bible in any fashion. Today, do you take a book at face value without reading the background of the author? That is unless its a work of fiction. As far as the "origin of the species" argument... go back and read Genesis. Whether you agree with it or not, or interpret it the way you see fit... its still a written story of human origin (I can assure you though, there is nothing scientific about it). I would argue that it was written exactly for the purpose you are arguing against.
2. Besides the story of S&G I would like to know what is taken out of historical context. Please point them out so we can also make sure that they are corrected. As for S&G, dont you find it funn how bad things in the old testament were attributed to Gods wrath and today they are explained off from the Devil and man's sin?
3. No they dont, they simply point out that modern Christians pick and choose what they want to believe. Matt 5:17 Jesus did not come to change the law.
But you are right in one thing you wrote; using the Bible to back up any argument is indeed superficial. All such usage is cherry picking by definition, and there are plenty of cherries in that tree--unfortunately, most of them rotten. Why anyone would waste their life trying to separate the edible cherries from the ones that make you sick is beyond me, but then again, you're the Bible scholar (or to use your childish vernacular, the "Bible-bagger"). I read enough of the Bible when I was young to know your advice is spot on, so I laid off it forever...
Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil. 4:8
"whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable"
Whatever you want it to be.
And invariably, gods are exactly that. Yet more evidence that gods are nothing but a product of the human imagination.
No books, no doctrine, no supernatural, no buildings. But religious beliefs equal to any believer in any deity with an old book and doctrine added to and revised constantly for a thousand, two thousand years or more. Equal. In every way my religion is equal to theirs.
If we believe (as I think most people do) that people have free will, then how can we hold God solely responsible for evil? Did God force Loughner's hand to pull the trigger? Did God force people in New Orleans to build their houses near the coast, and below sea level? Did God force dictators into power in certain African countries, who plunder and abuse their people to no end? Why do we not share the blame for the horrors of the modern world?
This is one aspect of Christianity that appeals to me; while acknowledging that evil exists and the world sucks sometimes, God will not leave it as it is. Our fights for justice in today's world will eventually be brought to full fruition, not by our own efforts, but by divine intervention in the best sense of the word.
Well said. I am a new fan.
Can you point to anything we should consider, or offer a general overview that might convince us you have a point?
Revealed in all its natural glory, the meatballs might offend PETA, and some people just don't like noodles.
Ramen!
We pillage, we plunder, we rifle and loot
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
We kidnap and ravage and don't give a hoot
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me
We extort, we pilfer, we filch and sack
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
Maraud and embezzle and even high-jack
Drink up me hearties yo ho
Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me
We kindle and char, inflame and ignite
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
We burn up the city, we're really a fright
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
We're rascals, scoundrels, villains, and knaves
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
We're devils and black sheep, really bad eggs
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me
We're beggars and blighters and ne'er do-well cads
Drink up me hearties, yo ho
Aye, but we're loved by our mommies and dads
Drink up me hearties, yo ho