God, how convenient.
While discussing different people’s deities of choice, I am always interested in the evidence. Even if it’s not hard evidence – what are the things that cause you to believe, and what do you believe about your god of choice? It is often incredibly striking how convenient the characteristics of modern deities are.
For example, if I were a Santaist and trying to convince people that Santa does in fact exist, I would need to come up with some reason they can’t just set up a camera to catch St. Nick in the action. Maybe he doesn’t show up on film or something. That might actually be true, but it has all the appearances of hiding reality – and in this case, we know the fat man isn’t actually coming down chimneys.
I see no difference in the attributes of god. They may actually be true attributes and a god may actually exist, but on the surface these qualities just seem like superstitious mystics designed a deity that can’t be scientifically examined and thousands of years later modern believers accept the definition of god because it keeps him just out of reach of objective examination.
I will attempt to list some of these convenient characteristics here. You may not define your god by all of these attributes, but I imagine a lot of them fit.
Omnipresent. God is everywhere at once. This is a hard one to really grasp, considering everything else we know has a specific form and is bound by that form to exist only where it is. Still, convenient that god is never missing.
Omnipotent. God has unlimited power. There is nothing god cannot do, other than, of course, any number of things that are illogical. (Rock so large he can’t lift it, etc.)
Omniscient. God knows everything that was or ever will be. This one has some logical and philosophical consequences when combined with the omnipotence, but we’ll talk about that some other time.
Invisible. We can’t see god. No one ever has. The common Christian answer will be something artsy like, “I see god in the face of a baby”, but that’s not actually god, is it.
Unseeable. We can’t see god. Okay, this one is similar to #4, but it has a subtle difference. Most believers say that even if we did actually see god, it would probably kill us. He is too holy for us or we don’t have the ability to really process his grandeur.
Inaudible. God speaks to people… but he doesn’t really speak to people. It’s a nice way of saying, “when god speaks, he uses the bible or other people or events or anything other than an actual voice.”
Ambiguous. God works in mysterious ways. In other words, it’s not really very obvious where god is doing anything. Sure, you may pray that something happen and it does, but it’s equally likely that it doesn’t. Just as if you hadn’t prayed at all, actually. If things work out favorably, god did it. If they don’t, well god has another plan.
Absolutely right. God is the definition of correct. God inspired a bunch of rules in the bible and then proceeded to break some of the most important ones. Remember “do not murder”? The god of the Old Testament goes on a murderous rampage, but of course it’s justified because it’s god. He doesn’t have to follow the rules. If he does it, by definition it’s right. God creates humanity to worship him knowing most of us will go to hell? That’s okay, because who are we to question the potter? Awfully convenient.
Supernatural. God is something other than natural. To say it a different way, god is completely outside the jurisdiction of science and the universe as we know it. How do we know this? Well… because he can’t exist any other way. By definition, this makes god scientifically unknowable.
Rewarder of faith. God respects and even commands people to confidently believe things, even “know” things, without any reason or evidence. Christians in particular are very keen to praise faith as a positive attribute. When confronted by the unexplainable, a believer will proudly claim that they may not have the answers, but they still have faith it is true. How is this even an answer? In any other arena of debate, the person that says, “I can’t explain it or show any proof, but it’s still true” is laughed out of the discussion. God, however, asks that you just believe. An incredibly convenient mechanism for spreading deception.
Eternal. God has always existed and always will. It is convenient that god requires no beginning or cause by definition.
Periodically active. God gets intimately involved in human affairs occasionally. God created all of this mess and then hung out with Adam & Eve in the garden until they misbehaved. Then god decides he screwed up and drowns 99% of the life on the planet. Then he helps Moses and a slew of prophets perform amazing miracles. Short jump to sending Jesus down to do some more magic and then die for us… then basically nothing. In modern history, when science has really helped us explain our natural world, god has been unusually quiet. Finally we have the tools to document miracles like burning shrubs and parting rivers, but god stopped doing tricks. Our only records of amazing miracles are from a bronze-era desert tribe and an apocalyptic group of Jews. The modern moderate Christian will come up with any number of justifications, but most of them are flimsy or simply leaning on god’s vagueness.
If I were to design a god and try to tell people he were true, I’d definitely include some of these. Obviously invisibility is a must.
Am I leaving anything out?
October 26th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Yes, I would say 200 years is relatively modern.
Either way, I haven’t seen any objective evidence that morality is on the decline.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
After fighting long and hard with my darker, selfish tendencies, I cannot believe you said God is convenient. CS Lewis called Him a “holy intruder”. How much easier would be the road of disbelief (..at least for now).
God calls on us to deny ourselves in acts of sacrifice and self discipline. While choosing Him does indeed grant a deep, inner peace that passes understanding, as well as abiding joy, there is still a war within to be fought (Rom 7). May I fight it full and well, and may He have the glory.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:47 am
@Mike – Why not give yourself the glory, if you’re the one doing the fighting? p.s. Atheists & non-Christian theists try to improve their characters also, and they do it just fine without your god or your holy book.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Well, I didn’t say it in that way. I was arguing that many of the characteristics of gods are convenient in that they give the god unlimited power and righteousness while simultaneously allowing humans no opportunity to objectively sense the god.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Angie,
Thanks for the reply.
If not for the Lord, I would have no reason to adhere to any morality. Darwin even predicted the “red tooth and claw” darkness of his theory. I would live in selfishness, limited only sufficiently to avoid punishment or embarrassment. This would therefore actually be externally imposed behavior, rather than true, internalized morality.
Let’s use an example. If I disbelieved, what’s to stop me from cheating on my wife (which slows down evolution, btw)?
December 20th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Clint,
“I didn’t say it that way.”
Fair enough.
“…objectively sense…”
I notice a lot of unbelievers imply they want a personal visit in some form. Some got it in Jesus Christ while He lived on Earth, others like us, have their record in scripture, which was verified by the miracles of Jesus, His apostles and those the apostles selected (no record of it going further than that, so disregard the TV phonies). Why only those three groups of miracle workers in the NT? For the answer, we need to know the four purposes of miracles.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Clint,
“Fear is a core tenet of Christianity.”
I am under the impression that many abandon it for this misunderstanding and never really get to understand (much less celebrate) the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Fear is a good STARTING motivation, but with maturity in the Lord, it must give way to love. There is no fear in love – 1 John 4:18 (read the previous verse for context, too!). Did you ever truly learn to love the Lord more than yourself? If so, the fear would subside, replaced by an eagerness to please Him and be with Him. Ever wonder how John could say, “Even so, come Lord Jesus!” in Revelation?
If we trust Jesus Christ to save us, the fear is replaced by joy, but if we attempt to be righteous in His sight by our own works (to DESERVE Heaven), the result will be either:
1. We will convince ourselves we really are behaving exactly as He told us, become self-righteous with a “holier than thou” attitude, looking down on others (Luke 18:9),
OR
2. We will be honest with ourselves that try hard as we might, we cannot fully live up to His expectations, become disheartened and drop out.
Maybe this also partially explains why atheism is likely in those who had a bad or absent relationship with their fathers. See Paul Vitz’ work for more on that, if interested.
Make no mistake, God is Holy and cannot tolerate sin (He wouldn’t be just if He let us (or nations) treat each other any way we chose), but wants us to be saved from His wrath to come (John 3:17, 2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4).
I encourage all to accept His indescribable gift. Read Romans carefully, too!
December 20th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
So the only thing stopping you from doing evil is your concept of a deity and his blessings or wrath? Doesn’t that make me, as an atheist, a considerably more moral person since I live a relatively good life without an invisible parole officer?
How is this different than the externally imposed morality from a god?
I can give you several reasons that stop me from cheating on my wife:
By your argument, I must assume that those points are simply not sufficient for you. You would happily throw away your life partner other than a rule in an old book with an ambiguous deity backing it up? I don’t know you well, but even I think more highly of you than that.
Also, let me clear up a common misconception that you may not be aware you’re implying. Just because someone “accepts” evolution as happening doesn’t mean they want to be an agent for it continuing. I have no allegiance to evolution’s advance. Even if I did, sex for me wouldn’t be a good idea anyways, because I’m not an ideal specimen.
I’m not requesting a personal visit, I’m just asking for some kind of objective proof. Ancient records of miracles during an incredibly superstitious era don’t really do much for me.
Now if God would have just waited a couple thousand years he could have been on video, but I suppose he does really value blind faith.
Really? I can only speak from personal experience, but it seems like the religious absolutely adore finding people with broken homes to fill their heads with stories about “God the Father”. I’ll investigate Paul Vitz a bit, but I already have some reservations.
Contrary to seemingly popular belief, I don’t know many atheists that are so because of some horrible event in their lives. That pattern, like I’ve said to you in the past, seems to line up more frequently with a religious person.
God wants to save me, who he designed, from the world he created and his own wrath and all I have to do is become his servant? Sign me up!
Will say, I did always like Romans.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 am
Clint,
I guess it depends on what you mean by relatively moral life.
The reason my morality is internalized is out of love (vs fear) for the Lord. That relationship (vs a “rule in an old book”) comes first, which strengthens and preserves all other relationships. So yes, I don’t cheat on my wife to avoid hurting her, but without an absolute moral reference (God), I could simply try to keep it from her, with the notion, what she doesn’t know won’t hurt her. It seems you agreed with this in stating that it takes too much work to keep an affair secret.
[Accepting evolution does not demand supporting it]
Fair enough.
The reasons you offered for not cheating (most of which I agree with) are pragmatic and some will consider them subjective. But rationally speaking, atheism cannot subscribe to moral “oughtness”. In that world view, there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to life, there is no good or evil and the universe doesn’t care. For every pragmatic reason for moral behavior, an atheist can offer, “So what?” One could counter that morality is social convention, for practical reasons, but again that isn’t absolute, but subjective.
But what if our purpose IS to live by free will according to a moral law, given by a moral law Giver? THEN the “ought” becomes intrinsic to our very existence.
If interested in the moral argument, Peter Kreeft’s explanation is at:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#14 . I listened to his CD set and he really gives both world views a pretty thorough and fair treatment. I don’t know if his website does the same, since I haven’t read much of it yet.
[Causes of atheism]
I surmise that there probably are multiple reasons for atheism. Vitz’ even admits there are exceptions to his hypothesis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN53Txg-xhk . I don’t think he discusses atheism due to horrible events outside the father relationship problems. His book is “Faith of the Fatherless”.
“…objective proof…”
Romans 1:18-23 indicates that creation is sufficient to hold us without excuse. I know it certainly stuns me the more I study it. I heartily agree with Pasteur (my science hero, btw).
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:07 am
Yes, my morality is pragmatic, subjective, and reasoned. I imagine yours is as well, you just assume God wants the same things. This is most obvious when Christians only sample the parts of the Bible’s code that fits and reject the rest as “cultural” or “old law”.
Why do we need absolutes? It seems to me absolutes never work anyways.
I would argue that the Bible is not a good example of absolutes anyways, as the Yahweh of the OT is vastly different than his supposed NT son.
What if our purpose is to follow every rule given by an evil totalitarian law giver? We can “what if” all day, but I still prefer a reasoned morality over religious doctrine.
There are lots of reasons for theism, too, but the number one reason is childhood indoctrination (read: brainwashing).
Atheists typically don’t have group meetings with rituals, scripture memorization, chanting, authoritarian lecturing, and emotional music. The atheists I’ve discussed it with either didn’t grow up very religious or, like me, rejected religion after significant study. In other words, it starkly contrasts the typical emotional religious decision.
God does love ambiguity. It certainly raises questions about Christian doctrine if someone on an island with no other human communication can figure out salvation through nature.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
You’re angry at Him, aren’t you? Stalin on his death bed repeatedly gathered the strength to sit up and shake his fist in anger at God. Always interesting how one can so hate someone in Whom they do not believe. Please disregard, if I’m incorrect. I just get that sense by your writing style, although you are more self controlled than others I’ve met.
Well I’m happy to be on this side of the issue, but maybe you’re an atheist who is truly as confident there is no God as I am that there is. In that case, I guess our faiths are equal opposites. I dare say I have more faith than Dawkins (6/7 atheist), ’cause I’m 7/7 theist, and ready for death or the return of Christ (ptL). Through my own goodness? By no means, but you know the rest. It’s kinda like falling back off the picnic table over 12″ spikes, trusting a friend to catch you (trapeze acrobat catcher w/o a net works, too).
I intend to praise God profusely if you change your mind and I see you up there, Clint!
December 26th, 2009 at 3:19 am
No, not at all. Nor am I angry at any other fictional character, no matter how heinous.
Can you back this claim up?
Not that it really matters. Contrary to popular belief, Stalin isn’t an atheist role model and people in their final death throes aren’t always mentally sound.
I can only speak for myself, but any frustration, irritation, or anger isn’t directed at a deity. It’s typically in response to those that profess to believe in it or their actions.
I wouldn’t accuse someone who finds Scientology repulsive of hating Xenu.
You out-faith me and Dawkins both. I mean no disrespect, but to say you know that an unknowable deity does or doesn’t exist doesn’t seem very intellectually honest. As much as you hope or believe, you don’t really know that God exists since you, like everyone else, likely has very flimsy evidence.
I highly doubt the existence of anything supernatural, but I’m not ready to make a blanket statement that it cannot and does not exist.
And the Muslims intend to praise Allah profusely if you change your mind.
By the way, where do you think I’ll be going?
December 30th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
[Frustration/irritation at beliefs or actions]
Why does it bother you?
[intellectual dishonesty]
Is it a lack of evidence, or rather a rejection of it by the unbelieving (Romans 1)?
[Where do you think I'll be going?]
Loading questions are we? You know the answer to that one, but it doesn’t have to be that way, and scripture indicates God doesn’t even want it that way. Gotta be on His terms, though. That Russellian, “But God, you didn’t give me enough evidence” (reiterated by Dawkins), isn’t going to hold up.
You and I have probably studied many of the same apologetical topics. Perhaps God’s providence has allowed you and I an “alter ego” type of encounter. Everything I’ve found so far in science and history have reasonable harmonization with the Bible, unless I first ASSUME atheism. I read some interesting material recently how the geologic column is dependent on the same type of reasoning.
December 31st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The same reason intolerance, prejudice, elitism, impeding of scientific progress, authoritarian lecturing, etc. should bother anyone.
Someone in the same breath can claim they pray to Jesus and he “opens doors” for them and then make a cliched statement like, “I didn’t come from a monkey”. It’s an incredibly hypocritical view of reality that shapes everything the person does, including how they treat other people, vote, view animals, etc. It also opens the floodgate for any number of supernatural beliefs, because you simply can’t rule out anything if you allow for a cosmic superpower that can break the laws of physics at will and did so in the past – but conveniently not anymore (which you justify with some set of rules about why miracles are done). Again, it all smacks so loudly of “conveniently false” that it’s hard to hear anything else.
I’ve been learning about the “evidence” my whole life, and it’s just not that compelling. At this point in liberal religious studies we tend to see the argument from design, which is incredibly ambiguous, or a lot of high level philosophical arguments that don’t impress me. I welcome any better.
Not really. Just curious what you think. Not everyone would say I was going to hell, given that I was once “saved” and went through all the steps down the “Roman road”.
This is potentially opening a can of free-will worms, but I don’t have any respect for a God that asks that I play by his rules or else he’ll (unhappily?) torture me for eternity when he supposedly created me in a way to reject him and do things he doesn’t want me to do. Even if you want to pull the “fallen world” card, Adam and Eve still managed to break the rules and God knew they would. He might as well have skipped the whole fruit thing from the beginning, but then I guess that would make him explicitly at fault rather than trying to shirk it off on to a woman.
I’m sure we have. I wouldn’t argue for providence, obviously, but I enjoy the contrast, even if I sometimes sound a bit virulent. I relish various viewpoints.
Sure, but you first ASSUME Biblical inerrancy, which includes miracles and an all powerful super-being, so you can likely make anything fit the Bible given enough time and effort. I know, because I used to do it with reasonable success. In fact I have to fight against that tendency even today, but it’s a useful skill.
Online?
Happy New Years, by the way.
January 1st, 2010 at 12:50 am
Mike, what do you make of I Corinthians Chapter 2? As I read it, Paul is suggesting that only those who are granted the “Spirit of God” can recognize his workings. Since only God can extend this spirit of understanding, it seems that the buck starts and stops with him. Would it not be capricious to damn people for not recognizing him when he has denied them the means to do so?
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:35 am
Hi Doug, thanks for replying.
I love vs 9 of that chapter, btw. No, God isn’t arbitrarily extending His Spirit to folks (if I take your meaning accurately), but it is given to those who accept His gift of grace in Christ Jesus and respond to that gospel (vs 12 as well as Acts 2:38).
I don’t mean to sound like a know-it-all, since I don’t, but it isn’t hard for me to harmonize what I observe in the material world with what I read in scripture. I want Christians to get in the Bible, without which, they are easily tossed about by every wind of doctrine and are perishing for a lack of knowledge.
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:20 am
And how is this done exactly?
Sure, but that’s because the scripture is considerably malleable. If you find something that contradicts the Bible you will not throw out the scripture, you will assume the data is false or incomplete, the scripture was being interpreted incorrectly, or some other wily maneuver.
You simply will never have a problem “harmonizing” to something you are absolutely committed to that is as old and ambiguous as the Bible.
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:41 am
Hi Clint,
[intolerance, prejudice, elitism, impeding of scientific progress, authoritarian lecturing, etc. should bother anyone]
Agreed.
[view of reality shapes everything the person does...]
Again agreed.
[Open the flood gates]
There’s that word “convenient” again. I suggest that atheism is MIGHTY convenient, agreed? Sarte agreed with Dostoevsky’s Karamazov character that without God, everything is permissible, which makes complete logical sense. When fighting my own dark side (Rom 7), atheism actually looked tempting sometimes, but I cannot deny what I’ve read and observed.
[Consideration of evidence]
You find the argument from design ambiguous? I find the “pre-adaptation” reply to Behe’s irreducible complexity HIGHLY improbable. Also, huge inversions of the “geologic column” (Hart Mountain and Lewis overthrusts, the Matterhorn, Mythen Peak, etc.) I find far more likely to have developed en situ. 65ma of dino soft tissue preservation is also extremely improbable by any known natural mechanism. But each must choose his own faith, and some put it in materialism.
[Once saved, always saved]
I reject the doctrine, as well as the “inclusion gospel”. It may be convenient for some who don’t want to discipline themselves, but it tramples on the teachings of Jesus.
[I was saved]
Was it really your own decision, or peer pressure, to please someone else, get parents off your back, etc? I’ve heard some doozies. Please ignore, if not applicable.
[play by his rules or else...]
Is palatability relevant? Since God created all, He gets to make the rules and we are in no position to talk back. Ya, I guess we could “get back at Him” by going our stubborn way into eternal separation and that would hurt Him, but if only we truly understood His reasons for His rules. Do you have children? I hope your parents weren’t overbearing on you with religious matters to the point of smothering your expression of personal identity. I try to avoid that with my own children.
[God knew what Adam and Eve would do...]
Good point. I’ve often thought that even if they had obeyed, someone eventually would have messed it up. Such is the risk (inevitability?) with free will, but we know that love is dependent on that ability to choose. Thus, perhaps it’s a good thing it WAS gotten over with right at the outset. Now reality is conveying for the hosts of Heaven and earth the sorrow in deviation from God’s holiness.
[but you first ASSUME Biblical inerrancy]
Point taken, but methodical faith or doubt HAVE to be chosen as a starting point for all reasoning on these matters. I’ve run many thought experiments and test my faith hard. The Truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny. There are admittedly a few things I just don’t get, but others accumulate to the point where I consider my faith a reasonable step, versus a blind leap.
“Online [geologic column material]“?
Both on and offline. I should have said I recently read some MORE material on it, since I’ve read about it multiple times in the past as well.
Happy New Year to you as well, Clint. I consider you an intelligent person. Where do you live? Maybe we can have coffee together and discuss some of these things (don’t worry, I don’t get angry or hostile). Ajax looks like one tough beastie, btw. We have a Jack Russel named “Ace”.
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:26 am
Perhaps, if you’re referring merely to moral relativism. It doesn’t, from my perspective, appear contrived… since it’s just a lack of belief in something I find quite contrived.
Everything is permissible with a god, too. We just disagree on the consequences.
Maybe we don’t have it figured out yet or maybe improbable things do happen occasionally. Neither leaves me so uncomfortable I need a god-filler.
I know you’ve only named a few examples, but none of them are compelling enough to me to accept a supernatural explanation. I simply don’t know off the top of my head, but I imagine there are quite banal explanations for any one of them.
Materialism isn’t faith for me. It’s a position I’ve taken that makes the most practical sense, especially given humanity’s long bumbled attempt at trying to explain things with magic and gods.
I was young the first time, but I reviewed and reaffirmed my salvation many times throughout my life. It always seemed most important to do so before taking communion.
It is relevant insofar as we like to call God “good” and “loving”. If you believe in an evil cosmic tyrant than we are closer in opinion.
I do not, and they did not.
So a perfect deity needed love so badly that he damned countless people to hell so he could have it. That’s not the picture of God most people have, but it seems to fit.
God set everything in motion knowing that it would deviate from his holiness… so how did he himself not deviate? It’s like kicking a boulder down a hill and killing a family picnicking at the bottom and then blaming the rock.
Do you not find doubt the more honest, reasonable, and desirable starting point? Truth should be able to overtake the doubt-levy over time, but faith is as much a stopping point as starting for testing the validity of a claim.
I put up a good facade.
I’m in Tulsa, OK, the buckle of the Bible belt. There are advantages to both written and verbal communication. Verbal is more rapid, but a little less reasoned, typically. I love both.
He also puts up a facade.