The God Series, Part II: Looking at God

This is a set of essays about God & religion, science, morality & politics.

PART ONE said that it's important to study religion because it has become the primary source of violent conflict in the 21st Century.

That should have triggered a serious, widespread discussion of what faith is and why people will kill and die for their brand of it.

But it did not.

It is also a fascinating subject, in and of itself, as it necessarily deals with what is truth, how we know it, how we think and what we are, what is morality, what is science and can it be applied to theological ideas.

PART TWO - LOOKING AT GOD

There are many forms of religion.

As a rough, utilitarian generalization we can but them in four categories.

Nontheistic.

Deism.

Polytheism.

Monotheism.

Nontheistic religions include some forms of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism.

They have ethical systems, support social and family networks, have spiritual practices, and may have priests. But they do not claim, for the most part, divine revelations -- instructions from external entities who watch to see if they are carried out.

Polytheism includes some forms of Buddhism, Shinto, animism, Santeria, Voodou, Wicca, Hinduism and a host of others.

These claim a multitude of divine entities who interact with humans.

There is a spectrum. It is possible to consider Shinto, animism, some Wicca, among others, as effectively notheistic. Hinduism as a social and political force resembles the Big Three in monotheism. I have heard Catholicism described - though absolutely not by Catholics - as polytheistic, with its Trinity, Mary, active angels and saints that can be prayed to. Certain forms of Catholicism, especially in the Caribbean and, to a lesser degree, Latin America, seem polytheistic to an outsider.

Deism, in its classic form, believes in God, the Button Pusher, aka, the First Cause.
He pushed the universe's "Go" button, then walked off, never to be heard from again.

Nowadays, it is common to hear things like "God is Energy," or the Universe, or Love, or That Which Quarks Come From (heard that one last night, with great conviction and certainty).

Such gods are essentially meaningless, at least in the moral and political sense. They do not, and in most cases cannot, dictate their memoirs, instructions and judgments to people. Whatever their concerns might be, they can go on their merry way without us.

The monotheistic religions claim there is one God.

He is meaningful (is aware of and cares about humans, communicates, sets standards, judges and interferes with human lives), beneficent (he is good and has our well being as his goal) and is powerful (is able to do all those things at will).

He has revealed himself to prophets. Said prophets spoke His words to various other people who wrote them down, perfectly, and that is the ultimate guide to how we should live our lives.

We are not concerned, at the moment, with nontheistic religions or deism.

We are concerned primarily with monotheism and to a lesser degree, polytheism. Their foundation is a belief in an external God, or gods.

Therefore, to understand these religions, we have to ask about God.

Looking at God -- the Positions

The practice of science has codified a way of looking at the world.

It goes like this.

We see things happen. We imagine, or make up story, about how and why they're happening. In science that's called a hypothesis.

Then we look again. If that hypothesis is correct then we should see what we expect and predict happening consistently. If we don't get those results, then we go back and start over until we get a hypothesis that works out. When it does we call it true. (Actually, in science we call it a theory - like the theory of gravity, quantum theory, the theory of evolution.)

We can form three hypotheses about God.

To put it another way, we can view the phenomenon of God from thee positions:
God exists - Belief (the Missionary Position)

God does/does not exist - Agnosticism (a No-Position Position)

God does not exist - Atheism (Downward-Facing Dog)

Each position forces certain questions and does not permit others.

Belief/God Exists

If we start with belief in a meaningful, beneficent, all powerful God, this is the root question: Why won't God make himself clear?

I'm a writer. If I had divine powers, believe me, I would get it right the first time and never need a rewrite.

So why is there an Old Testament and then a New? Why is there the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib, Zhuan Falun, the Avesta, the Tattvartha Sutra?

As a writer, I worship clarity. If I need someone else to explain what I've written, I consider that a failure of the first order. God should surely do better. So why do the sacred texts of all religions always require someone to explain what they mean?

It is possible -- indeed, quite logical -- to say: "God is perfect, God gets it right every time. But, after all, he's talking to people, and you know how they screw things up. How often have you ordered a double cheeseburger with onions rings and ended up with fries? Human error, pilot error, mistakes happen."

Actually, that's a pretty good solution. If everyone said, "Yeah, we know God did his best, but look at what he had to work with, so my bible is just sort of an approximation, and yours must be, too, so let's not fight over it," then this would be an academic discussion, not worth writing or reading.

But they don't.

They all say, "This is it. The revealed truth. The one and only. You can kill me, and I won't give that up. If you want to fight about it, I'll kill you."

OK, not all of them. But enough to make this conversation a matter of life and death.

Is there a way to pick the right truth? To determine which truth is The Truth?
Each tradition has produced millions of words that prove that theirs is the one that came direct from God and got it right. Such arguments are very convincing to people who already believe what's being argued for.

But imagine a panel of judges, made up of a Protestant, a Catholic, a Mormon and a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh and a Buddhist, too. Could anyone make a presentation of his or her Truth as the One and Only Truth that could convince them all? Or even get a majority of such a court?

Even within religions -- everyone swearing by the same text -- there are disagreements, divisions and schisms. These, too -- Protestant versus Catholic, Shiite versus Sunni -- are volatile enough to lead to violence.

Believers like to argue that the word of God is absolute and unchanging. But in practice, that's absolutely not true.

The rule for marriage in the Old Testament -- based on examples and God's occasional command -- seems to have been, "One man and however many women suit the situation." The New Testament did not explicitly change that. Both St. Augustine and Martin Luther said there was no scriptural prohibition on polygamy. Yet today things have somehow morphed so that the Catholic Church and most Protestants will insist that it is God's law that "marriage is a union between one man and one woman."

Similar changes have taken place over slavery, divorce and the death penalty for adultery. God's law, as expressed by religious leaders, evolves quite as much as man's law.

If we start with the hypothesis that God exists, from the Missionary Position, these are the kinds of question we need to ask to go forward:

Why doesn't God make himself clear?

Why does God give different rules to different people?

Why is it that the culture someone is born into is, far and away, the most important determinant of which revelation they believe in?

Is there a way to sort out The Truth?

If a new prophet arrives tomorrow -- and they do arrive with great regularity -- how can we say that the new revelation is not the true revelation?

Atheism/God Dose Not Exist

Here are the questions we have to ask from the atheist position.

If God doesn't exist, why do so many people believe in him?

If God doesn't exist, why are spiritual practices and religion among the human universals, things that exist in all human societies?

There is an exception, the Communist experiment, with state-ordered atheism. That can be regarded as an attempt to alter humanity's basic inclinations, like the various attempts to ban alcohol. It achieved some success, but at great expense. It required violence, a minority always resisted and the practice bounced back, in varying degrees, as soon as the ban was lifted.

Here's the great paradox, and the most interesting question: If God doesn't exist, belief is delusional. Delusion is, by definition, dysfunctional.

Clearsighted atheists should routinely be happier, healthier and wealthier than delusional believers. But they're not. According to most surveys, they don't even have a better sex life.

There have been atheist societies. During the second half of the 20th century, the Soviet Union, the countries of Eastern Europe, China and the Communist countries of Southeast Asia, almost a third of the world, were officially atheist. They did not generally out perform the United States, the countries of Western Europe, and many of the Asian countries allied with the West, all of which had freedom of religion, and some of which had state-supported churches as well.

If atheism is the The Truth, why isn't accepting the truth more helpful? If belief is a Lie, why isn't the lie more harmful?

Agnosticism/God Dose or Does Not Exist

Agnosticism sounds very reasonable, rational and even scientific.

The social sciences -- psychology, sociology, anthropology and the rest -- officially take the stance that the existence or nonexistence of God, the process of revelation, and what is known through revelation, are all outside the realm of science.

But how can you study the psychology of religious belief in a meaningful way unless you first determine if people are believing in something real or false? It's the difference between someone trying to climb a tree that's there and trying to climb one that's imaginary.

If the word of God is true, it makes a certain amount of sense that people will kill and die for it. Understanding that is pretty straightforward. But if people are killing and dying for a delusion, then there's some explaining to do.

That's actually an exciting question. Because it raises fundamental questions about human psychology.

Religion has an important place in all societies. Even in those where it is proscribed.
If the priests are, in fact, acting out the commands of God, they're like engineers or generals, trying to get certain things done, based on the data that's available to them.

If religions are made up, with most of their creators and practitioners sincerely unaware that they are creating institutions based on fictions, that's a very different type of phenomenon.

The economics of religion are quite mundane if God exists. It makes sense that billions of dollars are collected in his name. But if he is a widely held fantasy, then the resources devoted to the God business are a great and fascinating mystery.

If people are making up the God stories, it's not hard to figure out why they're different. But if God exists and they're actually coming from him, we have to wonder why he doesn't make himself clear. Or -- more likely -- assume that it's not his problem, since he's perfect. and then we would have to ask what's the matter with his prophets that they keep screwing it up during transmission, and figure out why that is. After that, we must wonder why people insist that the revealed word is accurate.

Agnosticism does not permit us to take either approach. Agnosticism can't ask the fundamental questions about God. Or man. It leads to triviality or incoherence.

The Way Forward

If we start as agnostics, we can't ask the fundamental questions.

We can look at what people do, but not understand why they do it. We can look at the forms that religion and spiritual practices take, but we can't understand why spiritual practices and religion exist, in all their various forms. We can find out a lot about the subject, but not really understand it or create a coherent theory that explains it.

If we start with belief, we're stuck.

We can't go up to God, drag him into the witness box, make him swear on himself, then cross examine him about what he's really like, what he really wants from us, and why he keeps sending different messages.

We can't get up close and examine him. We can't set up scientific tests to measure and evaluate him.

All we have are "revealed truths."

But we have too many. There's no way to sort out which is "truthier," short of killing each other in the hopes that only one side will be left standing. We've been doing that for over a thousand years, without making any progress.

We are at the same impasse today that we were at when Richard the Lionheart went off to Jerusalem to fight Saladin.

In the effort to understand religion and faith, belief -- even if it's correct -- is a dead end. If we start from there, we end there. There is no way forward.

If we start with atheism, we are asking questions about ourselves.

That's something we can do.

We can examine ourselves, test ourselves, and see if our theories -- hypotheses -- about ourselves will stand up to examination. We can insist on consistency and coherence. If our ideas don't work, we can change them, and change them again, until they do.

We can even go in front of panel of judges of all the different faiths and say, "if you're willing to pretend for a moment that God doesn't exist, would this theory make sense?"

If we can't succeed, and there is no way to explain what's going on from a position of unbelief, then we have to eventually give it up and go at it from a different perspective.

Even if you, personally are a believer or an agnostic, and you are in search of some way to advance our understanding of faith and religion, to get past the impasse we've been at for millennia, there's only one way forward.

Let us restate that another way.

If we trying to figure out if the sun goes around the earth or the earth goes around the sun we have to start with one of three hypotheses.

Hypothesis #1: The sun goes around the earth. Then we figure out a system that accounts for all the things we see moving in the sky and see if we can make if work. In practice, we got to a point where there were two many contradictions and new observations added to the difficulty.

Hypothesis #2: The sun goes around the earth or the earth goes around the sun, there's no way to know. You can continue to collect data, but you can't get to the essence of the problem.
Hypothesis #3: The earth moves around the sun. Can we construct a mental model of such a system that accounts for all that we now know and remains compatible with the new things we're learning. The answer was yes. Even though it required the invention of a weird, new, invisible force, called gravity. Actually, that made the hypothesis a powerful and fruitful one, it suggested, even required, new ideas.

We are trying to figure out if man is looking at God or if God is something man made up.

We have to choose a hypothesis to work with.

There are three. One leads us to confusion. One goes to a dead end.

Paradoxically, there's only one that offers the possibility of increasing our understanding of God, the one through unbelief.

*****

Other essays in this series will be about: Belief, Why We Believe in God, Morality & it's Relation to Religion, among others.

Larry Beinhart is the author of "Wag the Dog," "The Librarian," and "Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin." His latest book is "Salvation Boulevard." Responses can be sent to [e-mail].

Comments

[rainbowblue]

I appreciate this series. I think it is a nice break from the religious bashing that goes on regulary around here. I have to take issue with your discussion on God, though. The existence of God(s) is(are) irrelevent to the discussion of affairs of State that your first post trumpted as the reason for your look at religion. While in some ways I appreciate a methodological approach to the God question, it won't work for one reason: faith. God demands faith, and works in ways that run counter to scientific reason and observation. Science cannot prove or disprove God, since they it does not work within the realm of faith. I also take exception to the spurious reasoning that God must exist because the faithful are "happier". What we need to understand our world to day is the history as well as the "in's and out's" of the major religions. Basically, what they believe, what they value (or don't) and their relationships with outsiders. Musing on the existance of God is a good thought exercise, but one that doesn't solve religious wars. However, I think you are on the right track for the most part (just stay away from scientific reasoning, as it's very nature removes God from the universe).

[romeopapa]

Well said, Paradym. But regarding "the battle between Agnostics and Atheists"... really there is no "battle," is there? Only a slight semantic difference, in my view. Neither believes in a god, both acknowledge that it is unknowable, and both conduct their lives on the assumption that there is none. Both base their morals and ethics on humanist, rational social regard for the common good, with the usual sociopathic exceptions.

One might say that an agnostic is slightly more PC than an atheist in his/her public philosophical expressions. I have no problem viewing myself as both, but I am diffident about shocking delicate friends and relatives with strong statements about their beliefs or my lack thereof.

As a practical matter, I'm for laisser-faire regarding philosophy­/religion, but a rock solid wall separating church & state.

[Paradym]

It becomes obvious that The Believer is losing ground in the war of Who's Right. As science progresses and more people like Mr. Beinhart shed light on the logical fallacies of religions we move closer to the battle between Agnostics and Atheists. And that battle comes down to either there is Something there or there isn't. The Atheist proclaims that there is nothing there, and there is mounting evidence to show that. The Agnostic states that we can never know if something is there or not and that it really doesn't matter, since Whatever Might Be There isn't making itself known.

Now, we must do the Scientific Thing and ask, "What if we remove Something from the equation? Do we still end up with the same solution, i.e. the universe as we see it?" If, without Something, the universe falls apart, then Something needs to be there. If things continue right along, then Something just ends up being useless clutter.

I really liked Mr. Beinhart's question of why isn't God making itself more clear, less open to interpretation. Why go to all the effort of talking to/through prophets and inspiring books if we're only going to get it wrong, and why leave any room for interpretation? Just look at how much trouble we have with our Constitution, and we wrote the darn thing only a couple hundred years ago!

[romeopapa]

Good article for the most part, Larry. But IMO, agnostics, in the absence of evidence, believe it is UNknowable.
Atheists don't believe in a deity, and say that it is highly improbable, not impossible.
Granted some do say, without falsifiable evidence, that there's NO god, a modest assertion compared to the fantastical claims of religious folks.

Agnostics and atheists KNOW that no god could be all-mercif­ul,-knowin­g, &-good, but still permit the misery, cruelty, & disasters plaguing humanity daily. But such atrocities DO yield to rational explanation by the random chaos of a changing universe, and the unrestrained aggressive instincts of the evolving human species.
We also KNOW that a god worth the name would renounce the anthropomorphic traits assigned to him/her by fearfull believers ...like anger at not being worshipped 5 times a day or once a week... Nor could a would-be creator countenance eternal damnation for her/his ignorant & faulty creatures. Such a notion is the product of a diseased mind, the ravings of a man dominating his tribe and protecting his ricebowl.

Agnostics and atheists are devotees of the Golden Rule, of preserving this fragile earth that sustains us all, of KEEPING religion in the hearth & home, church & temple, but OUT of the public and political life of our pluralistic, delicate democracy.
That's the bottom line...believe without evidence or rationality anything you want. But in the public arena, don't expect preferential treatment, freedom from criticism, or respect for your myths. Happy holidays. Peace

[HeevenSteven]

I've changed my view of religion a bit over the past few years.

I held the "religion is the cause of all our problems" view; but I’ve modified that. The reason is, I'm increasingly skeptical about the possibility of pulling conclusions like that from history. Tolstoy wrote something related to this in one of the epilogues to "War and Peace", which I have on my "to-read" list. I did, however, read about this topic in Peter Turchin's excellent "War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires".

You can't do experiments with history, rewind the clock and tweak some initial condition and run it again. You can only overlay your own biases, or try to find similar repetitive situations, recorded by somewhat dissimilar people, in somewhat dissimilar places.

I now think people like David Sloane Wilson have the correct approach. Larry touched on it here when he said, "We can examine ourselves, test ourselves, and see if our theories--­hypotheses­--about ourselves will stand up to examination."

Evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, etc, are the route to understanding religion. In this light it is really irrelevant whether religion is the cause or the cure to our problems; because, like the entire universe, it just is, and we have to deal with it.

I may change my mind tomorrow, or next week, as since I'm always a work in progress, I'm becoming less sure of my ability to know anything.....except that Wondering is BATMAN.

[HeevenSteven]

"Larry touches on it here"

I meant to say, "Larry NAILS it here". Larry, Kudos to your your very clearheaded presentation.

[HeevenSteven]

As an atheist, I can say...my sex life would be better if it wasn't for my HuffPo addiction...lol..

[JohnFromCensornati]

"Clearsighted atheists should routinely be happier"

I take exception to this assumption. Why should I be happier? Delusional believers think that they will live forever. I'm pretty sure that I won't. That doesn't make me happy, but it is what it is.

[timm0]

Exactly. Similarly, they don't have to be judged to "perform" better, healthier, nor wealthier.

For that matter, these are completely invalid metrics on which to judge one who is deist, _theist, or any -ist at all - unless there are universal writings from all sects that project these things as god's explicitly stated reward to believers for their belief.

[seatea1967]

I disagree with your characterization of agnosticism. As a scientist I can definitely be of the position "I have neither confirmed nor denied my hypothesis since there is, so far, insufficient data that has been collected." This is not to say the answer is eternally unknowable, just that there is not enough data to draw a firm conclusion at this point.

This is how I feel about the belief/disbelief question. I see evidence in nature of things which cannot be explained by our current level of scientific understanding. This does not make them divine, only currently unexplained. I have confidence that eventually these things will be understood by science, just as we've come to understand many previously mysterious processes throughout the history of science.

But one cannot prove a negative. I cannot amass evidence and eventually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, the existence of a deity will likely remain an open question barring some very drastic development in either science or theological events. Likewise, stating "there is no God" at this point in history, is a leap of faith directly comparable to a belief in the divine.

[timm0]

Agnosticism is the only logically supported "system," really. Every time we discover something through science that repudiates a religious belief (e.g. flinging virgins into volcanoes as a sacrifice to a god will prevent it from erupting), we pull a brick from the wall of the believers.

To me, an agnostic isn't out to prove or disprove anything. An agnostic doesn't care if there is or isn't some deity or explanation or whatever. We got what we got and live on without devoting time and energy toward some "higher belief" - the codes for which all, at some point, have some element demonstrated as illogical or incorrect. For example, agnostic couples don't pray for god to "bless" them with a child.... there is quite a bit of evidence that proves the practice is less effective than sexual intercourse.

[HeevenSteven]

I think you're a bit confused about this, but I'll leave it someone else. Where's my Bat phone.....

To the Bat Cave, Wondering!

[stevesrant]

No! Not Wondering! We'll sink back into the same tired, narrow view of the old man with spaghetti, instead of keeping it at the more encompassing, conceptual level where Mr. Bienhart is attempting to lead us. And I, the Eternal Agnostic Riddler, won't stand for it! Curse you Atheist Batman! :-)

[From the Raft]

Thank you for the first two essays. Personally, I hope to learn from them and gain some insight on the religious "disease' which has afflicted the world.