What is the Definition of God?
“I shall understand by “atheism” a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism… atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief… Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist – for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any
views on the subject.”This is often defined as strong or positive atheism - the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. In coming on to sites and forums like this, most commentators are making that explicit affirmation.
The problem with this whole discussion is that it starts at a false premise. It assumes that everyone defines “God” in the same way.
Last month I published a long review of Dennis Prager’s new book Still The Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph and discussed my view for the real important division we should focus on defeating:
That’s what the Bible is really about, though we don’t like to talk about it because it’s so disgusting and scary: the ancient Israelites’ battle against nature-worshiping sex cults that practiced human sacrifice. I always wondered why idol-worship was so important as to be above things like murder and stealing in the 10 Commandments. Aren’t those much worse than someone just praying to a rock? Nope. The Commandments are just listed in the order that they’re broken. Idolatry — worshipping an image, worshipping a noun — comes before any other evil act. Within the ethical monotheist tradition, God is not a thing we can comprehend. God is transcendent — God is a verb. Thus to worship God is to worship a verb — to transform into understanding ourselves as a state of permanent change and growth, not a static, defined image.
Every human being has to worship something. All “worship” means is to regard with respect and reverence, to focus deeply and obsess. So for me, the intriguing questions are not the Atheist vs Believers food fight of “Does this other guy’s supernatural deity he worships really exist?” but rather, “What happens to my life when I choose to worship something?” and “What’s the difference between making a verb the object of worship instead of a noun?”
When we ask these questions then we start treating religion as a branch of science in the tradition of the Renaissance alchemists, mystics and Hermeticists like Isaac Newton. We don’t have to prove a deity exists, we just have to conduct the experiments of testing out religious rituals to see if they really work to bring one closer to union with God. And my tentative conclusion is that they do.
Sure, the world is full of religious hypocrites and terrible people masking their evil with religious language. But the sincerely religious are the most amazing people I’ve ever met. The loving, happy people they’ve become through their deep devotion to their faith offers all the evidence I need to think they’re on to something. And I don’t have to agree with their theology to stand with them on the value of the religious life’s pursuit of holiness. The right theology isn’t what does the trick for making someone a better person. I sit equally amazed by the lives of my very Christian college friends and my Orthodox Jewish new media colleagues.
So far I have yet to see how any purely secular philosophy produces people as decent as the more traditional faiths. But maybe I’m wrong?
—
Related article from this author: 6 Varieties of the Agnostic Experience
Image and thumbnail courtesy Artens
Every human being has to worship something.
Hm. That assertion seems a bit too bald, or to require a bit of an equivocation of the word “worship”. First two of the dictionary definitions are:
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
Your definition seems to include ironic uses, like the guy who “worships” baseball.
That’s correct. I think people can make baseball a religion that they follow with the same level of devotion as an Islamist. Disagree? Look at the riots that come after some sports matches. Those who reject traditional religions will just assemble an alternative secular quasi-religion — and have varying levels of success depending on the pieces they use.
The problems is the definition you’re referring to is “to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion (a celebrity worshipped by her fans)” but your claim that everyone worships it only makes sense if you drop the intensifiers. I respect the scientific method and Winston Churchill, but I wouldn’t say I worship either. Sure, there are people who worship their sports teams, but there are plenty of other fans who simply enjoy the game. Does George Will worship baseball?
No, baseball is a hobby for George Will. He worships God. If the only thing George Will did with his life was go to baseball games (and the sport dominated all aspects of his life) then one could say he worshipped baseball.
Yes, I am claiming that everybody worships SOMETHING. Everyone has a religion of something whether they want to admit it or not.
“Yes, I am claiming that everybody worships SOMETHING. Everyone has a religion of something whether they want to admit it or not.”
Those two sentences aren’t the same thing. I agree with the second one, but the only way for the first to be true is if “worship” is redefined into a triviality.
“If the only thing George Will did with his life was go to baseball games (and the sport dominated all aspects of his life) then one could say he worshipped baseball.”
By this definition practically nobody worships baseball, or any other sport. The vast majority of people, even those who riot after big wins or losses, have job and families which take up the majority of their time. They simply enjoy the game and its ancillary activities, such as harassing fans of other teams.
So Mr. Swindle I give you this challenge. Tell me what I worship. At the very least tell me how I can tell what I worship. Because by the definitions you’ve provided I don’t think I worship anything, even metaphorically.
Jeff,
Some people worship themselves, some worship money, some worship pleasure, some worship power. Most atheists come across as worshipping themselves; in these cases, it must be pointed out, their gods are extremely lame compared to my God.
Jeannette, you fail to answer the question. I wanted to know what I am thought to worship. Or, since I recognize Mr. Swindle has limited information about me, what characteristics I should look for to identify the object of my worship. Mr. Swindle’s thesis is that I worship something. I want to know if that thesis can be put to practical use.
But, arguendo, let’s say I worship myself. I must say, having proven my existence (cogito ergo sum and all that), having helped others, and having prevented evil when it was in my power to do so I think I come across a damn sight better than your God. Frankly, from where I’m standing, your God looks to be kind of a dick.
Ummm Jeff, if you’re too dim to know what is the center of your universe aka what you worship, and you think that a minor blogger on a minor political site has the answer, you are in fact a lame god after all. And I think your god is a total dick, too, for the record.
A definition’s only good if it excludes things. By using this idiosyncratic definition of worship, you get to make a rabid fan’s affection for their team into “secular religion” but hardly anyone prays to John Ellway for healing, even here in Denver. But then you end up equating St Teresa’s ecstasies with a bunch of cheering drunks in a bar.
You always do this Charlie and it’s why I’m starting to lose faith in dialoguing with you. You kept doing this in the previous debate we had about sex. You’d restate my opinion in some outlandish way instead of arguing with what I’m actually saying.
No, Charlie has simply restated your premise in a logical alternative. As Charlie says, if you want to avoid a subset of logical alternatives you don’t like, then you have to frame your premise to exclude them. In this case, if you don’t like comparing rabid fans in a bar to St Theresa, then your premise must be precise enough to exclude them.
Dave, the reason you fall into these things is that you make these pronunciamentos that don’t stand up well to examination, but want them taken as dogma. In this one, you’ve begun with an idiosyncratic definition of worship:
“All “worship” means is to regard with respect and reverence, to focus deeply and obsess.”
Based on this definition — which is rather different from the dictionary definition, as I pointed out — I don’t see how to distinguish between some of my friends who are rabid Broncos fans, and Saint Teresa. If I’m wrong, explain to me how, based on your definition you can make that distinction.
But don’t tell me I should know what you mean, because I don’t know what you mean: all I know is what you write.
Wrong, Charlie. I said this: “Look at the riots that come after some sports matches.”
You then substituted that for this: ” a bunch of cheering drunks in a bar” and “rabid Broncos fans”
I wrote about people who care about sports so much they commit violence when their team loses. You didn’t acknowledge the situation I was actually talking about and instead downgraded it into something else in order to delegitimize my point.
A lot of Evangelical Atheists also try to dance away from the etymology of the words, recognizing that a-theism is vulnerable to the same logical issues as theism. So let’s recall that the “a-” prefix in Greek means negation; thus a-theism is an explicit assertion of the non-existence of any God; a-gnositic, root “gnosis” or “knowledge”, is the assertion that one does not know.
>… So let’s recall that the “a-” prefix in Greek means negation; thus a-theism is an explicit assertion of the non-existence of any God; a-gnositic, root “gnosis” or “knowledge”, is the assertion that one does not know.
<
Nice try, Charlie, but not quite. "a-" simply means "without" and does not necessarily imply negation. Your own example "agnostic" means "without knowledge" NOT "negates knowledge". Other common examples include: achromatic (without colour); amoral (without morals); anaerobic (without air); etc.
The ancient Greek theists made a positive assertion that the gods existed. The atheists simply refused to accept the assertion without evidence. Refusing to accept a positive assertion without evidence is NOT the same as making a positive assertion of it's opposite or some other alternative.
If you say the moon is made of blue cheese and I say "show me some evidence", I am NOT claiming it's made of frozen yogurt. I'm simply refusing to accept your claim without evidence.
I concede that some atheists make a positive denial. But that is NOT necessary; it's merely a subset of a larger group, many of whom, myself included, make NO contrary claims. We simply ask for evidence before we will accept the theist claim.
I’d like to see a citation for that. Among other things, were that true, then agnostic and atheist couldn’t be distinguished either.
Sure there is: a-gnostic, without knowledge (a generalist statement); a-theist, without theism (a specific statement).
You can be agnostic about anything: baseball statistics, history of the Mayans, Egyptian hieroglyphics, for example. But you can only be atheistic about the theist belief claim.
“I concede that some atheists make a positive denial. But that is NOT necessary; it’s merely a subset of a larger group, many of whom, myself included, make NO contrary claims. We simply ask for evidence before we will accept the theist claim.”
I assume then that you also would tell one of these positive denialists that you want evidence before you accept their denialist claims? I don’t see nearly as much energy being expended by people who take your position on letting the denialists (what I used to call an atheist, but apparently that is now wrong)know that they don’t accept their claim. If you are consistent, admitting that you do not accept the denialist claim either, then you are what I used to call an agnostic (but apparently that is wrong), which is what I used to be. What I don’t understand, then, is why you get into this kind of discussion at all? As an agnostic, which I used to be, I had no motivation to take a position in such an argument as I neither denied, nor accepted anyone’s positive position. Note that when you tell us that you do not accept anyone’s claims, for or against any god, you are only talking about yourself. You have told us that you need evidence to accept a positive claim.
Well, big deal then. Of what relevance is this?
“I assume then that you also would tell one of these positive denialists that you want evidence before you accept their denialist claims?”
Yes, I do! Since they can’t produce any, I don’t agree with them either. I don’t care who says: “The moon is made of blue cheese”; nor who replies, “No, it’s made of frozen yogurt”. I want to see the evidence or I don’t think so.
If you spent any time at all on skeptical blogs you would soon discover that atheists have this discussion. The logical reason for “positive atheism” is that the theist claims are so patently ridiculous, that they CAN NOT be valid, therefore the opposite is MOST LIKELY valid.
I spend a lot of time on skeptical blogs.
“The logical reason for “positive atheism” is that the theist claims are so patently ridiculous, that they CAN NOT be valid, therefore the opposite is MOST LIKELY valid.”
Theist claims are ridiculous? Well anything can be ridiculed. What exactly is the ridiculous theist claim? Theists are united in the claim that at least one god exists (believing that multiple gods exist implies belief that a god exists). And you make a statement that concludes the opposite is most likely true. How do you square this with telling me that you do not accept the atheist claim either? Do you have some probabilistic calculus by which you assign probability to the claims of various “positivists”? I wonder how you calculate these probabilities.
A probabilistic statement about the state of things is not a statement about the truth of things. It is just a statement about your own knowledge. You could say that the probability that the number is 3 on the ball I chose from a bin that contained 10 balls numbered 1 to 10 is 1/10. However, it is either 3 or it is not 3 and your probability calculation has nothing to do with it. It is a statement about what you know, not a statement of fact about what is on the ball. Bill manages to see the ball before I hide it and he sees that it is a 3 or an 8, so he makes a statement that the probability that the ball is a 3 is 1/2. Which is it? 1/2 or 1/10. They are both true as the expressed probabilities are merely statements about knowledge, and you and Bill do not have the same knowledge, so you should come up with different numbers. The probability statements are statements about what is known, not statements about what is.
In the same way, a statement that a theistic claim is “most likely” not true is not a statement about the truth of that claim at all. The claim either is, or is not true and “most likely” has nothing to do with it.
“YKW
I spend a lot of time on skeptical blogs….”
Good for you, I hope you learn something useful. What is the probability of theism being valid after the course of 5000 years of dreaming up contradictory explanations of the unknown and unknowable god? About the same as for the tooth fairy.
“About the same as the tooth fairy.”
This doesn’t sound like something that someone who “doesn’t believe God exists” and who also “doesn’t believe God does not exist” (quotations not meant as literal quotations of your words but to delineate what you have expressed). It sounds like the words of someone who is pretty well in the camp of those who believe the positive statement “God does not exist”.
Any differences in the God that has been worshiped over 5,000 years can be explained as the result of a partial understanding of the same God all the time. We have made similar progress, eliminating errors over time, in our mathematical models of nature based on cumulative experience – otherwise known as science – where early crude models have been refined or discarded outright as better models came from the fertile minds of a limited number of people.
“The unknowable God” conveys that we cannot predict what God will do, so there can be no science of God, just as we cannot predict where a dispersed wave function will “collapse” into an electron’s precise location on a screen, so there is no science of this aspect of quantum mechanics.
Any attempt to define God — note the capital G — is a fundamental error, after which no further coherent discussion is possible.
Pre-Hebrew gods — note the small g — were potentially definable, because they weren’t postulated to possess the overriding characteristics of a truly Supreme Being: omniscience and omnipotence. Those small-g gods were spoken of as warring with one another, as plotters whose plots involve the temporal realm, and who intrigued and counter-intrigued against one another in service to various schemes and ends. Thus, they were implicitly subject to time, and to laws of cause and effect over which none of them had any control.
A capital-G / Supreme Being God, by virtue of His omniscience and omnipotence, must logically stand outside time and space. He would know all because causation of the sort temporal creatures experience is irrelevant to Him. He would see time as we would see a huge, unimaginably complex map: an infinitely variegated network of branching possibilities, at each fork of which temporal creatures exercise their wills. He would know what will follow from any choice we make at any decision point in our lives. Indeed, even the word “knowing” would be misapplied to such a Being, for it implies a dependence on cause and effect, which would have no effect on a supratemporal entity.
A Supreme Being’s omnipotence is similarly critical to His undefinability. Definition in human terms implies limitation: the assertion that a member of a particular category possesses certain characteristics but not others. Indeed, the word’s etymology means “a statement of limits.” In Aristotelian terms, a defined god would have to belong to an enveloping genus, but possess a differentia — a set of characteristics that only gods possess — that separates Him from the rest of the genus. This is absurd when applied to a Supreme Being, since it’s self-evident that only one such could possibly exist.
In short, a Supreme Being God can be postulated, but not defined. He can be discussed, certain of His attributes can be postulated (e.g., whether or not He has a special concern with Mankind), and some of those attributes can be tested against the exclusions described above. But He cannot be delimited — i.e., we cannot say what He is not — and so He cannot be defined in any logically consistent sense.
A great Rabbi , Abraham Joshua Heschel , said it more succinctly -
” A G-d you could explain I could not worship. “
(chuckle) Well, yes, that’s quite succinct. But some persons require a certain minimum tonnage of argument before they’ll consider a proposition seriously. I could tell you stories…but as I’m a nice guy, I’ll refrain.
God Himself — the God of the Bible, that is — was usually quite succinct, too. It was only when men got involved in “interpreting” His edicts that real complications arose. There’s a moral in that, I think.
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=275996
I propose that we should give a rest to Mormonism for a while, because their concept of theism is so much different from other major religions. One such difference is, that Mormons believe God has a physical body, and most other religions believe that God is a spirit. A person with basic skills in philosophy of religion can argue against Mormonism on that feature alone, there are some useful audio lectures on that subject at http://www.apologetics315.com by Dr Groothuis and Dr Copan.
There are three classical concepts with God: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. Deists usually ignore the last attribute, because they believe in a God who put the world rolling and then left it to roll its course. You can get to Deism with cosmological arguments, adding the moral argument gets you to Theism.
Well, the Deists handle that neatly by pointing out what we think is “bad” or “not benevolent” might not be what Deity thinks.
A common misconception about the moral argument: it talks about ontology, not epistemology. A Theist can believe in the moral argument and say that the Bible and the Quran are not reliable ways of finding out the distinction. Not a majority view, but there are some.
All talk about who can know about good or evil, or how we can know it belong to a different set of arguments. I’m open to suggestions about how we can know the difference between good and evil.
Sure, let’s exclude everyone who isn’t at least 99% in agreement with our specific viewpoint. The discussion will be lots less contentious, and who needs all that disagreement anyway?
My point is not to dismiss Mormons, they are free to believe what they want. They number about 15 million worldwide, and Christians, Muslims and Jews number closer to 3.7 billion worldwide together. Because everyone else believes God is a spirit who transcends the world and is its Creator, and Mormons seem to think otherwise, it’s easier to discuss these two views separately. There are other major theological differences between Mormonism and Christianity, which you can find out if you want.
Sure! Let’s exclude everyone who isn’t already in 99% agreement with us. That will make the discussion less contentious; who needs all that disagreeable disagreement anyway?
Whoops. Blog software sure has problems! It looked like the first post went down the rabbit hole, then turned up again after I reposted. Grrr.
C. S. Lewis, however, included them.
That would be the right thing to do.
There are three classical concepts with God: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.
This confuses the abstractions of the philosophical interpretations of monotheism with the biblical experience of God. Omnipotence ≠ “all-mighty” and “omniscience” ≠ the power to know me wherever and however I may be.
I am not aware of any religion that claims that God is “omnibenevolence.” “Unconditional love” is a construction of post-biblical “spirituality”. (I just had an argument with my pastor on that issue yesterday.) The God of the bible loves particular people (the covenant with the Jews; those who put their faith in Jesus Christ for Christians).
God(s) is (are) particular, not general, specific, not abstract.
There is ha-Shem, Yhwh, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. This G-d reveals himself in and through his covenant with the Jews.
There is the God who (purportedly) raised Jesus from dead. The worshipers of this God claim he is identical to, continuous with, (in the sense that I am continuous with the David WL who, say, went to college in 1973) Yhwh.
There is Allah, the God who claims to speak in and through the Qur’an. His worshippers, who call themselves Muslim, claim that the worshippers of the Yhwh and the God of Jesus were really Muslims.
Then you have the ancient polytheisms, the all-embracing Brahman of Hinduism, etc.
There is no God-in-general. The question is not, does a god exist. The question is, does this God exist? Has he revealed or manifested himself (she/herself in the case of feminine in polytheism).
I’m not the expert, but I’ve found that you can’t get at religion from the outside – by observing it and defining its characteristics in some Aristotelian way. Religion has to be something you experience, not something you believe. So the only way an atheist can “understand” your religion is to stop being an atheist and start doing religion. Practice comes first, being convinced second. And that’s why most atheists will never be religious: they have to be convinced first before they’ll practice. It’s a bit like refusing to experience the Iliad because nobody can prove Homer was a real person.
Sure.
“Seek [sincerely] and ye shall find”.
“I speak in parables, so that, ‘though seeing, they [the insincere] may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’”
Obviously, Satan is a gerund.
We don’t have to prove a deity exists, we just have to conduct the experiments of testing out religious rituals to see if they really work to bring one closer to union with God. And my tentative conclusion is that they do.
The funny thing being, if you carry out those kinds of rituals and you’re Teresa, you come to greater closeness with Jesus and Mary; if you do them in the mountains of Yemen, you get closer to Allah; do them in 10th century Persia and you get closer to the Beloved; do them in India and you end up adoring Krsna; in Haiti it may be Baron Samedi.
Obviously there are either a lot of Gods jostling for worshippers, or a lot of wishful thinking and creative imagination going on.
There are more possibilities then that.
Elaboration, please.
You can’t think of any other possibilities?!
Come on!
It could be the same God responding in all these cases. That’s another possibility. It’s not the only other possibility either.
“YKW
You can’t think of any other possibilities?!
Come on!
It could be the same God responding in all these cases. That’s another possibility. It’s not the only other possibility either.”
That’s what the Baha’i religion says. It also says that Muhammad, Báb and Bahá’u'lláh superseded Jesus. If so, you’re on the wrong band wagon.
I’m on the Bahai bandwagon if I think some thing that they do as well? I then logically must follow all the rest of their doctrines too (I assume this is what you mean by my being “on their bandwagon”)? How does that work?
If you want to link me with someone’s ideas, C. S. Lewis would be a lot closer, although it would go too far to describe me as his disciple. He, for example, described quantum mechanical uncertainty as “subnatural”, believing that it made no difference in the macroscopic world, and he had no further interest in it, whereas for me, quantum mechanics plays an important role. That is because today we know that microscopic uncertainty can give rise to macroscopic uncertainty (unpredictability).
(I have known quite a few Bahai, including a Knight of the Faith, but we never discussed religion).
This is one of those arguments that because there are many religions, they must all be false. Well, that doesn’t follow, though it’s more reasonable to say that than to affirm that all of them are true, as the Baha’i think.
“This is one of those arguments that because there are many religions, they must all be false. Well, that doesn’t follow, though it’s more reasonable to say that than to affirm that all of them are true, as the Baha’i think.”
The logical statement is: since there are multiple, conflicting and contradictory claims, they can not all be true. Either ONE is true or ALL are false. Since NONE provides any verifiable evidence, then MOST LIKELY all are false. If any one provided verifiable evidence, then it’s claim would be validated, pending verification of the proffered evidence.
“Since NONE provides any verifiable evidence, then MOST LIKELY all are false”
I think of a number from 1 to 10, write it on a piece of paper, turn it over, and ask a hundred people to guess what the number is. Each number from 1 to 10 has its supporters, yet not one has a shred of verifiable evidence to support his guess. Then most likely they are all wrong?
Nope, that’s not true. This illustrates an error in your logic.
“YKW
I think of a number from 1 to 10, write it on a piece of paper, turn it over, and ask a hundred people to guess what the number is. Each number from 1 to 10 has its supporters, yet not one has a shred of verifiable evidence to support his guess. Then most likely they are all wrong?
Nope, that’s not true. This illustrates an error in your logic.”
Yes, they do. They know the ONLY possibilities are 1 – 10. There’s a high probability that many of those 100 people will guess correctly.
Make your number 1 – 1,000,000 then I’ll agree with you that most likely they will ALL GUESS WRONG.
Your god guessing game is pick a number between 0 – infinity. Very low probability on that one.
There are not an infinite number of religions. The numbers on the balls represent professed religions. There are more people than there are religions.
Here is your verifiable evidence.
If a quantum mechanical wave representing a photon, the wave necessarily distributed in space, impinges on a detection screen, the photon could be detected anywhere the wave has a non zero value. Where it is detected is not predictable, yet when the photon is detectable, a choice has been made. That a choice has been made is evidence (not proof) that something makes that choice. That something is beyond science according to the tenets of the science itself (quantum mechanics).
To MW:
You can narrow down your quest for truth by making three big sets of worldviews, and then see which one, at its general form, is most consistent and corresponds to reality. Also, ask questions that are important for you and see what answers they give, and at the end see if your answers are coherent.
1. The secular worldviews: underlying explanation for everything is chance. Materialism, scientism, naturalism etc. fit here.
2. The pantheistic worldviews: God and the world are identical, the world is divine, all is one, you are divine, and all that follows from that route. Hinduism, eastern religions and New Age fit here.
3. Theistic worldviews: there is a personal God, who created the world. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, possibly most forms of Deism fit here.
The verification principle or logical positivism is no longer used as the ultimate test for truth. Philosophers abandoned it 50 or 60 years ago, now it lives in the heads of scientists and popular culture. It cuts too much away from science, and it’s ultimately self-defeating: how do you verify that the principle itself is true? If you take it “just on faith”, you’re far more dogmatic than I am.
That said, Theism passes the verification test: God did not create a 700 pound rabbit in your living room.
Pick up a copy of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, written by Mary Baker Eddy, and first published in 1875. Read it through carefully, twice. Think about the answer to the question “What is God?” on page 465, and ponder the definition of God in the glossary, page 587. Then take up your debate again. Guaranteed eye opener and thought-provoker.
Actually, “finding” God is not that hard. His love for us so great, He actually wants to be “found.” Here’s a good way to start with a simple prayer from the heart: God, if you’re real, I want to know you, more than I want to know answers to my questions.”
The journey begins. You will not be disappointed.
Jeremiah 29:13 – You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Proverbs 8:17 – I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.
Matthew 7:8 – For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
“He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” 1 John 4:8
Looks like John agrees with Prager that God is a verb. God is something that is realized only by DOING something: loving. So what happens when you don’t get it; instead you worship a verb, or transform it into a noun and worship that?
If I tell you there’s a very important election coming in November so make sure to vote, it’s very clear what my meaning and intention are: pull the lever or mark the ballot! If instead you “revere and honour” or “formally render such reverence and honour” to the verb “vote”, or do the same to the noun “vote”, what exactly have you accomplished? Nothing. You didn’t get it. You didn’t vote.
“God is love” means “God” is an action, not the object of an action. Therefore worshipping “God” is meaningless.
I don’t have a “worship” hole needing to be filled.
> “What happens to my life when I choose to worship something?” and “What’s the difference between making a verb the object of worship instead of a noun?”
…food fight of “Does this other guy’s supernatural deity he worships really exist?”
<
Well said, David! And BTW, thanks for checking out the discussion at DC.
Are there some guidelines for using this blog??? Here’s what I meant to post:
> “What happens to my life when I choose to worship something?” and “What’s the difference between making a verb the object of worship instead of a noun?”
…food fight of “Does this other guy’s supernatural deity he worships really exist?”
<
Well, the first one is that comments are moderated, so there’s usually some lag before you post shows up.
Other than that, it looks like the two posts are basically the same. What did you think went wrong?
I *think* it’s a combination of browser and cookies. PJMedia sets cookies and I’m using OSX Seamonkey. Usually, my comments show up immediately, so I presume the moderation is after the fact.
When my comment does not show up immediately, I clear cookies and cache and reload the page. Usually the comment then appears, but sometimes not.
Another possibility: because I only visit the site infrequently, I’ll generally post multiple comments within a short period of time, and this may cause issues; again, most likely due to cookies. Maybe the cookies are set to time out too soon?
Maybe you have OCD? Maybe you don’t have any patience? Are you the kind of guy who’s already honking your horn at me when I’ve merely lifted my foot from the brake and have not yet pressed on the gas and clutch? Some atheists (to partially answer Jeff Gauch’s 8:48 post above) worship themselves and have the idea that whatever they do or say is of prime importance. Is that you? I don’t know, just guessing some possibilities from what I’ve read of your posts so far.
Jeanette:
The first to resort to ad hominem loses.
“Loses”? You’re the one who’s struggling with successfully operating the comment boxes on the blog. This post is about the definition of God or the definition of atheist. Ultimately, the only way I “lose” is if I’m completely wrong about the nature of God and therefore I end up in Hell. In fact, if I’m insulted or mistreated (I mean this hypothetically-I’m not losing any sleep over this conversation and all that) because of my faith, I gain a reward in Heaven (which is eternal). Better yet, if I merely “will that those who do evil against me, repent of it so they don’t go to Hell for that sin”, I get my sins forgiven (the Our Father lists a one-to-one ratio).
I’ll let you in on a secret: when atheists insult Christians for our faith, we pity them. Our awareness of God is kind of like another sense that atheists lack, so it’s analogous to blind people taunting us for having this mythical sense that’s called “sight”. I sometimes get the impression that the “nasty atheists” (Hitchens, et al) would really like Christians to be sad or maybe turn away from our faith. But why would someone go blind on purpose? Why would a sighted person pretend to be blind? Why would I want to be as unhappy as you are, in your blindness? (I’m a Southerner now, so I guess this is where I say “Bless your heart”.)
Jeannette, why don’t you try meditation. They tell me it does wonders to calm one down. Or, if you’d rather just rant and rave at me, feel free. Show us what a wonderful affect religion has had on your life.
Perhaps your view of worship is too constricted. God said to Saul, after he failed to do as he had been instructed, “to obey is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of the ram”. What God is saying here is the externals are fine and, in this case, even required, but if that’s all there is you’ve totally missed the point.
True worship involves a transformation of ourselves into the beauty of holiness. As we see Him and know Him and embrace Him we become like Him. If one’s worship is not transformative, but rather merely rote and external, than one has totally missed the point.
This is supposed to link to #10, Michael Wassil – I still don’t understand the meaning of “Link to this comment” which I clearly read differently than intended. But, on the other hand, I do understand worship;~)
My contention is that “worship” however defined misses the point. I happen to think that John MEANT EXACTLY what he said:
“He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” 1 John 4:8
There is NOTHING to worship. There is ONLY an action to DO.
Of course, if it’s that simple and straight forward, there is no need for priests, an ecclesiastical hierarchy or even an organized church at all. If, indeed, the truth is WITHIN you, of what use are priests and churches?
So naturally, let’s create a theological edifice so complicated and abstruse it requires doctors of philosophy and theologians to interpret. Let’s create a god concept to make sure everyone is focused on some external imaginary entity forever unknown and unknowable except through our guidance. Let’s get really smart guys like Augustine and Aquinas and Anselm to describe all the wonderful qualities of our unknown and unknowable god. Let’s do whatever it takes to make sure no one understands HOW SIMPLE IT ALL REALLY IS.
I know an atheist at work, great guy, doesn’t want to convert anyone to atheism, etc etc. But he’s not the kind of guy to talk anyone into anything to begin with. But kind though he is, he really would rather refrain from ‘religious’ talk altogether, thanks very much.
On the other hand, re: “evangelistic atheists”, I DO know that John Derbyshire is an ass. And Richard Dawkins is sort of a fool, the kind of fool who laughs all the way to the bank, of course.
David Stove (another atheist) thought Dawkins downright insane for Dawkin’s “selfish-gene” idea.
But surely Nietzsche was by far the greatest intellectual atheist ‘evah’, right?
He wrote, “All desire seeks deep, profound eternity.” Interesting. But do any atheists here really delve into Nietzsche? Or is he just a cipher?
My point is, atheism doesn’t seem too strong on the high intellectual end of things, at least not yet. But it DOES seem to be swimming against the stream of the common witness of humanity.
One last thought–if the Old Testament God doesn’t exist, can anyone explain the Jews? And if Jesus of Nazareth wasn’t God, who can explain the survival of the Church (East and West, etc) for two thousand years?
Serious question.
An Préachán
With respect to Mr. Prager, he is mistaken about comprehending God. John 17:1-3.
What is prayer?
Many people believe prayer is communication. We speak to God and if he is real he is supposed to speak back since he positively exists he should be easily accessable. This is false and incorrect definition of prayer. So if prayer is not communication then what is prayer?
Prayer is to call (ask) upon the name of the Lord.
Prayer is understanding our relationship to God. Matthew 7:7-11.
By understanding our relationship to God prayer is the act we do by which the will of the Father of our spirits and our will as the child are brought into corrospondence (agreement, connection, similarity) with each other.
Atheists under mistaken expectations and false doctrines about God, prayer and the nature of the Universe. Proof, evidence and experimentation upon the word or will of God is strongly encouraged by God himself. A perfect knowledge of God, to know without a doubt he is real and exists is possible, however it is dependent upon our relationship to Him.
While I have not heard God speak, seen visions or manifestations of God or angels I know by evidence of the reality of God by his word. As I live by His word which is the other corrospondence of God to his child is scripture I can know by His word God is real and most importantly that God loves us.
Oh woe! Why does PJM do this to me, to us, to the universe? A definition of God! Worse yet, the challenge is bound to provoke answers from “amateurs” in the art of defining God. I am not saying that anyone is morally free from the obligation to conceptualize God, affirming or denying said divine existence. But, when it comes to amateurs, it is best not to entice too many written responses, i.e., outside a class on philosophy at a university taught by a learned scholar, be s/he a philosopher or a theologian. Am I saying that I am not an amateur? You guessed it, I am saying that! However let me note that I could refer the readers of my most modest confession to numerous thinkers relative to whom I am in turn materially but an amateur. What the heck, I have doctoral titles and, well, they are like a driver’s licience, they establish a certain level of proficiency. Hopefully such engraved sheets of marvel sufficed to enable me formally to cross the boundry of amateur to professional. I have no intention in this comment of shining with a brilliant (or even stupid) argument. An argument worthy of the name is not possible in a collection of “comments”. So, let me enter the fray announcing a certain ironic attitude. The result is that I will tear down, more than I immediately build up. I will, just to be daring, offer in conclusion a wordy two word definition of God (and the second word is not necessary as it only brings to consciousness what the first words entails). In the end, I just want to offer some unexpected theses that hopefully point in a direction of thought different from what is usually followed in “defining” (sic) God.
Why would I place a “sic” after the term “defining”? That “sic” is my first act of irony. In one way or another, attempts to deFINe God conclude that God possesses the feature of inFINity. How in principle can a thinker conFINe the inFINite within a deFINition thereof and feel rationally fine about the attempt? The play on words just enacted was done in order to percipitate an inkling that the question as posed leads to a FINalization of an inner self-contradiction contained in the task posed. The entire definitory process becomes all the more muddied up by the fact that some fascinating theories of infinity have arisen since the days of Cantor (theories that I hold for playful, though brilliant semulances of nonsense–a fact essential in my own speculartions on a non-definition-definition of divine infinity). In my feigned humble judgment, a conceptualization of God qua infinity finds its initiation, not in a positive definition, rather in an examination of just WHY said definitional positivity is not possible. To entertain my thesis here is a step in the theoretical process of approaching a comprehension of divine infinity and just WHY said actual infinity is not comprehensible. In other words, the WHY understood reveals something about divine infinity. I repeat a wise notion that the infinite is no more definable according to logical rules, as the Scholastics well knew, than the notion of “esse” or “being” (misleading, though a normal translation).
I will seek here to STIMULATE by seemingly accepting the deniers of divine existnce. The affirmer of God holds that divine reality exists. The denier says that God, however defined, does not exist. I will agree with the denier and whole heartly proclaim that “God does not exist, …”. But, let us not forget my ironic attitude as evidenced by the three dots ending the sentence. I will now fill them out. “God does not exist, because God qua infinite actuality IS. Correlatively, if God exists, then God qua infinite actuality IS not!” What is implied by my seeming theoretical oxymoron: is =/= exist and exist =/= is. I will point towards the direction which my speculations lead.
I specified above that any understanding of God (or if one provisionally will, any definition of God) entails the predication of “infinity” to said divine being. The wierdness of my formulation above derives from this entitative feature of infinity pertaining to God. I reject any proof (which being a proof excludes the possibiliy of contradiction) of the EXISTENCE of God, because infinite being does not permit a use of the negative. Being is not not-being. (For the lovers of such ways of thinking I suggest the Italian philosopher Severino, he will drive you crazy not allowing for “to be” and “not” to be combined relative to infinity.) My point — no more than a suggestion — is that “existence” refers to FINite being. Existence distinguishes between finitude the goes beyond the realm of merely being thought, but not of being per se. Somthing (= finite) can, indeed, exist or not exist relative to its very finitude. Infinite being, I would argue on the other hand, using a type of ontological argument cannot not be, i.e., actual infinite being cannot not be. To assert the non-being of infinite BEING is to affirm a contradiction (Severino shines through here). I will, without further adumbration, define (sic) God qua actual infinity as “esse infinite” (or “to be infinitely”). The Latin adverb “infinite” simply specifies what is already contained in my use of “esse” or “to be” (I do not like English here.) This definition, such as the term is allowed, places me in opposition to the the frequent Scholastic definition of God as “ens infinitum”–a notion necessary for Cantorian infinities. (Here English breaks down in ambiguity.) Those familiar with ontological speculations, will recognize that a deviant ontology is entailed in the perhaps paradoxical theses given above. I must leave matters at that, hoping to have stirred up consternation in the reader, particularly if s/he is an atheist. For, if the atheist defines God qua actual infinity correctly (and that is of supreme importance for Cantor), God IS, period. I say with St. Anselm that the atheist cannot begin to talk conceptually about God qua infinity without offering a conceptualization that leads to drawing out into awareness the “esse infinite” that is God. And with such actual infinity there is no “non”. Atheism affirmed reveals itself to a firm contradiction.
My position places me in accord with St. Anselm and with the American idealist, Josiah Royce. Alas, as is practically universal, both Anselm and Royce use the term “existence”, though qualified heavily. Anselm’s use of existence quickly provoke a fellow monk to contradict him. Said contradiction does not work relative to my conceptualization or for the deeper level of Anselm’s reflections. For anyone interested in Royce’s version of an ontological proof, seek out his essay “The Conception of God” in a book of the same title (which includes discussions by colleagues). Unfortunately, the best discussion of Anselm I know is in Spanish and not readily accessible. Should someone be interested in my conceptualization of infinity, s/he need but ask for the info. I do not note it here because my article appeared in a theological journal in Taiwan and is hard to find in the West. Confused? I hope so!
Hi Leonard! Nice to meet again. And thanks again for your thoughtful response. Very interesting ideas.
However, I really do think John said what he meant and meant what he said:
God is love.
That’s a verifiable assertion and it sidesteps all the philosophical theobabble.
It’s also falsifiable. Look around: hot weather, cold weather, nature “red in tooth and claw,” human folly, greed and stupidity, Stalin, Mao, Napoleon, regular destruction of societies by nature, other societies, their own stupidity……..
Where’s the evidence that “God is love”?
Maybe you’re just looking for love in all the wrong places.
There’s moral evil committed by free agents and there’s natural evil.
Moral evil exists because free agents choose to do so. God is not responsible for this, the agents are. Very simple, very straightforward. Yet this is always the case: atheists want to blame God for things He did not do.
Natural evil (hurricanes, earthquakes, miscarriages etc) also are not Gods responsibility, because no free agent causes them. Yes, they are horrible. But God didn’t cause them, so it’s not His fault.
Then we have multiple witnesses, who claim that God has transformed their lives, they have hope, meaning and love in their hearts after a miserable life. Do you count testimony as evidence?
I guess you don’t. But hey, you atheists are always the same: blaming God for everything and then disbelieving in Him. The only good thing about this kind of reasoning is that you reject an evil God which you have construed in your minds, so you really detest evil. Then I put the existential sledgehammer on you and say that you don’t have a standard to appeal to and see you whimper and continue your endless, contradictory existence.
I’m beginning to think that Internet debates really are hopeless.
“God is love” is a particularly Christian formulation. (I do not know how much such a view is found in Jewish thought. It is there in some Islamic thought, but is pushed to the side with the emphasis upon submission [= meaning of Isla]) and the jihad necessary to obtain said submission.) Only with the greatest of timity would I dare many theses here. An interpretation is for a knowledgable theologian. However, as a philosopher I see a fascinating reformulation of your wisdom in the form of: “God IS love”. Given my use of “esse”, viz., “being” and the connection with infinity, a certain profundization is excitingly possible. In the end, your counter is superior to all the abstract defintions. But such definitions are necessary if theoretical understanding is to be sought. Allow us philosophers to have our fun.
Thank you, David WL for your “anthropologic” critique of “God is love”. The optimism of the theodicies of justification of a “good” world (with references in terms of human happiness here and now) by a genius such as Leibniz or a popular philospher in Germany such as Gottsched, all fail and miserably so. The gigantically destructive earthquick in Lisbon of 1749 (or thereabouts) blew the boundless optimism of Voltaire to pieces. Voltaire could only answer with his pitiful Candide. However consider: Divine direction and design underlies evolution, indeed, the order of the universe per se and, if the universe had a “big bang” beginning (and physicists such as Hawkins show themselves to be strangely stupid philosophers in their interpretation), a creative God, all this seems rationally plausible. Look up either the books of David Berlinski (I hope I have the spelling right) or his interview on “UncommonKnowledge.org” and you will find a brilliant mathematician (reading now one of his books on the subject, I am making no idle claim) tearing the Darwinistic explanation apart as a totally failed account. Indeed, this non-Christian, seemingly secularized Jew, concludes that Biblical creationists (directing evolution’s direction, not direct sequential creation of each species) have all probablity on their side, much more so than the chaotic naturalistic attempts that fall quickly into theoretical irrationality. But, here David WL you are right! 100% so! The God of evolution entails and accepts a supreme amount of suffering. (Hitchen’s critique of religion rests in part on such a thesis.) NO doubt about it! But is that the last infinite piece of wisdom? No! Let me explain with an example from German literature.
In the early 19th Century there lived in Germany a most brilliant writer, Georg Büchner. (A relative of his wrote the vulgar materialistic thesis that you are what you eat. And because Germans eat too many potatoes, they will never be reovlutionary. Ha, ha!) Bücher died young leaving some masterpieces for posterity. In these works, there is a profound pessimism due to suffering, SUFFERING!!! In one short story the anti-hero remarks, destroying every theodicy of pleasure in this world, that God is like a sadist observing the amazing order of a bowel full of canabalistic fish, eating one another. How is that for pessimism, for an argument against a loving God? Alas, Büchner was not long for this world and died at 23 (or was it 24). His death was full of torturous pain. Büchner’s friends dispared, a loss of such a good friend of such unusual brilliance. A female friend of Büchner’s went into the dying man’s room and then returned with a relieved look on her face. Confusing for the assembled friends. This young lady said, more of less from my memory: “Georg just woke up and said. ‘We do not suffer enough, rather too little. For it is through suffering that we come to God’”. Soon thereafter Büchner went to God. Not enough suffering? Suffering brings us to God? All this from a writer who had expressed most brilliantly David WL’s “anthropomorphic” objection to a loving God? Impossilbe, no? No! Bücher found in the depths of his suffering a transcendence of the finite world to “deep, profound eternity” (as the atheist Nietzsche was to formulate the matter before going insane as an atheist). The theodicies of fun and games in this world defect attention from death and suffering. And death comes like a thief at night. Worst of all, they offer no salvation from it. NONE!!! They leave us, David WL, in a state of no salvation and meaningless existence. Büchner came to reject the goal of joy and happines in this world as foolish. He experienced by means of and in his (for this world) senseless and painful death an access to God. Quoting the Bible again: “And God so loved the world that he sacrificed his beloved Son”. (I am using a German text and a poor memory.) A love that fundamentally transforms the structurally built-in sufferings and senselessness of human life–and what can be more sensely then Ausschwitz? In the smaller Dachau camp, which I have visited, religious inmates, before their untimely murder, of all faiths supported each other and they went on to worship their God. And you can bet, Mr. David WL, that they experienced their God as Love. Think about it. At least surrender antropologic theodicies as an argument against a loving God.
Oh, “Professor”, it’s time to take your medicine…
This is all very fine, but God, as Judaism and Christianity teach, is not a fact to which we must assent, or a debate we must win, but a capital “P” Person, to be known and known by. Thus, I’m not nearly as interested in Critiques of God as I am in His critiques of us.
You cannot rationally prove the existence of God, not because God does not exist but because Reason is flawed and insufficient. It cannot even explain itself, as David Hume pointed out.
I’ll take one, short, whispered prayer over ten long, eloquent arguments any day.
I agree that you cannot prove God with logical certainty, because the atheist can always disbelieve a premiss in my argument. The best I can do is make the intellectual price tag high.
Maybe things just pop into being from nothing without a cause. Seems absurd to me, but who am I to shove my metaphysics down someone’s throat.
The article did not define “God” at all. The “god” of the three monotheisms is a “god” that created the universe. The athiest does not believe this is true. The athiest asks “who created God?” The believers in “God” say “He” was always there, or “created himself”; the atheist thinks “the universe was always there and created itself.” Any article that claims to define “God” and does not at least start there is virtually idiotic.
Very late response to this, but there is one point I wanted to make.
A lot of people get on the “If there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world” kick when they want to deny the existence of God.
God is not some cosmic woobie there to protect you from Bad Things. God says in the Bible many times that, basically “life sucks.” Life if full of trials, failures, disappointments, sickness, pain, loss, sin and death. If you believe in Original Sin, we brought it on ourselves. If not, there is the doctrine of Free Will which allows people to make their own choices including evil, hurtful and stupid choices. That can range from individual choices to the mass effect of a political leader leading a nation into ruin and decay or even a genocidal war.
Simply put, God is the still, quite voice after all the sound and thunder, the little voice that tells us right from wrong but doesn’t force our choices. If we choose wrongly, we’ll pay for it eventually though oddly enough we may not be rewarded that we can see from doing the right thing. Indeed staying on the right path can seem unrewarding as the wicked seem to have so much more fun, get richer, and seem to suffer no consequences.
In sum, we have free will because God wants us to have it rather than make us robotic slaves. We do with it what we will to bring either good or evil upon the world, or just stay out of its way as much as possible. We have the rules whether one considers them divine inspiration or the collected wisdom of trial and error over millennia, and we can follow them as closely or not as we like. It’s up to us.