Many religious people say that a life without God is meaningless. They seem to think that life is pointless if we don’t have some higher purpose. Apparently the only way for us to have value is to serve God. Of course, a lot of their concern over this seems to be due to the impermanence of life. It dismays them to think that it all comes to an end. And they think that without the continuation of life that God promises, there is nothing worth living for.
This seems to me like a particularly morbid and depressing outlook. Even when I was a Christian, I never felt that life was meaningless without God. I have always thought that life is special in and of itself. For life to be meaningless without God there would have to be nothing but God in life. But there is so much more to life. The purpose of life is to live it and enjoy it. That would be true even if God did exist.
Life doesn't have to have some special ultimate purpose. Life is precious. It is full of emotions, challenges and experiences. Personally I love life. It’s certainly better than the alternative. My relationships with my family and friends are priceless. And learning new things is exhilarating. The joy of life is not in some ultimate goal but in the experience of it. To use a cliché, Life is a journey, not a destination. There are so many things to do and see. And we can build or create things that have the potential to go on after us. If we want immortality we should seek it by trying to make the world a better place and improve the human condition instead of tearing it apart with religious strife. I’m not anxious to die, but the fact that I will not exist after I die doesn’t bother me in the least. As Mark Twain said, “I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.”
If life is nothing more than serving God, it brings to mind the Euthypro Dilemma. What can we possibly do for a perfect being? If God lacks nothing and needs nothing he does not need us. To imply that our actions, no matter how pious or holy, can benefit God is nothing more than hubris. If God doesn’t need us and the only purpose in life is serving him - that would be a meaningless life. And in my opinion, a God that keeps people around solely for the purpose of praising him would be a petty being unworthy of that praise.
On the flip side theists say we need God to help us behave properly so we don’t run amok and allow the world to fall into chaos and sin. But is that really true? Why would we want to do that? What would it benefit us? Humans have the intelligence to see that working together cooperatively is better than the alternative. Why would we create a world of suffering for ourselves and our posterity? We have built societies where we can all live together in peace - but only when religion is taken out of the equation. One of the major impediments to world peace is religion. Religions can't cooperate because their dogma is unchangeable. Religion could easily be the downfall of the human race. For me, life seems to be more meaningful without God.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
God is Out of Time, in More Ways Than One
Recently I was reading C. S. Lewis’ acclaimed work of Christian Apologetics, Mere Christianity. No, I’m not a masochist. I was doing this because I have been told by many Christians that it is a really well written and intelligent examination of the beliefs of their faith. I always try to give their ideas a fair hearing. Many people say that this one book motivated them to become a Christian. One of these people is Francis S. Collins MD, PhD, director of the Human Genome Project. As an unbeliever, I am always interested in studying what makes people believe in something that seems to me to be ludicrous nonsense. And I know from experience that if an atheist fails to read all of the recommended references of religion, the believers will accuse him of being closed minded or being afraid that he might find out the truth of the matter. Heaven forbid! Actually, I don’t really care what they think of me. And frankly, nothing an atheist ever does will convince them that he honestly tried to understand their religion. However, it does lend credibility to your arguments when you can intelligently discuss these works and show that you have read and understood them or at least thought seriously about them.
As I read this particular book, I was amazed at Mr. Lewis’ certainty about things which no one has or could have the slightest knowledge. Although Lewis often says that there really is no way to know such things, he prattles on as if he has inside information. One of the things about which he is absolutely certain with no basis at all is the notion that God must exist outside of time. Obviously, this is nothing new. I have heard it said many times, but never in so much detail. To give the idea a fair hearing, I tried very hard to conceive of a God who might exist outside of time. Before I go into what I think about the matter, I must say that Lewis doesn’t seem to really understand what it would mean for any being to exist in a timeless state because throughout the book (both before and after he claims that God is atemporal) he refers to God as eternal (a reference to time) and he talks about what God did in the past and what he will do in the future. How is it that he can say God is not subject to time and then refer to him as if there is some chronology to what he does or is? It is very curious.
The first thing that occurred to me when trying to conceive of a God outside of time is that a vast amount of our language could not apply to such a being. This certainly appears to make it rather impossible to understand anything about God even though Lewis himself seems to think we can. He boldly states that God cannot be thought of as having a past or future and that all time is as a single moment to him. But he blithely ignores that assertion as he goes on to say many rather ridiculous things about God. I got the feeling that this notion of an atemporal God was developed as a refutation of some complaints about the concept of God. For instance, Lewis says that some people wonder who was minding the universe while God, as Jesus, was living a temporal human life. Of course, this could also be answered by referring to the belief that God is actually three people in one. Lewis attempted to make a case for this as well although he flatly denies that this makes Christianity a polytheistic religion. He claimed that this is because in the spiritual realm of God it is possible for multiple beings to constitute one being. Apparently they are somehow dimensionally analogous to how squares make up a cube. Anyway, I’ll leave that for another time and go on with the discussion of an atemporal God.
I think it might be useful to make a short list of words that have no meaning when referring to such a timeless God. Obviously, references to time are out of the question including nearly any statement using words such as: then, now, next, before, later, after, when, again, whereupon, begin, end, start, stop, because, while, during, duration, progress, history, happen, occur, plan, intend, attempt, interval, wait, dwell, develop, proceed, abide, delay, etc. Needless to say, when referring to such a god it is meaningless to refer to any past, present or future tense or the passage of time. As a thought experiment, try writing a story about something happening without ever using a word or phrase that explicitly or implicitly mentions the passage of time. Truly, this God he speaks of is so alien to us that it is simply not possible to understand it at all. This all makes me more certain of my claim that the God these people worship is incomprehensible, unintelligible and incoherent. Ah, but there’s more.
It would be equally nonsensical, when referring to this God, to speak of cause and effect since a cause must come before an effect. There is just no other way for things to work. Oddly, Lewis tries to make a case for Jesus being the begotten son of God while simultaneously claiming that Jesus has always existed. This puts a rather insufferable strain on any notion of begetting. But this problem would crop up with any claim that God performed an action that had a beginning or an end. Similarly, nothing can be said to move or act if time does not exist. Movement requires time because it implies that a thing is in one place and afterward is in another place. If no time elapses, there is no movement. If the thing is in both places at once, it is overlapping itself all through the phases of the movement. And that is just ridiculous. Even thought requires time to progress from one idea to another. Progression is meaningless without time. To gain knowledge implies time because there must be a state before the knowledge was gained where it had yet to be gained. Oh, it hurts my brain to think about it.
Lewis says that God knows our future and past actions because, for him, they are all happening at the same moment. Just think about that. If all things exist at the same moment at every stage of development and every point of movement then everything would overlap itself and everything else using that space at what would otherwise be another time. Matter takes up space and it moves around in space. A dynamic system like the universe cannot all be contained in the same instant irrespective of time. All change and movement depends on time. If there is no time, everything would have to be static and frozen in space.
And everyone with the understanding of grade school science knows that our bodies and all physical things are made up of the elements of the universe. Each cell in our body and every molecule are replaced numerous times during our lives. As Francis Collins stated in his book, The Language of God, at one time the same molecules that were part of a rock or plant can at some other time be part of a person’s body. If time is an illusion created by God, as Lewis states, and all things really exist at once, how could the same matter simultaneously be part of a rock or tree and a person or fish? It makes no sense. We can also see an interesting result of this thinking in logic. Even believers in an omnipotent God will agree that he can only do what is logically possible. For instance, he can’t make 2 + 2 = 5 or make a rock too heavy for him to lift it. And virtually everyone will accept the rule of logic that says mutually exclusive things cannot coexist although they may exist at separate times. However, if time is illusory, this rule is either untrue or else mutually exclusive things cannot exist at all.
The whole concept of God existing outside of time is harder to swallow than a bowling ball. I even tried to invoke Quantum Mechanics, String Theory or M Theory to explain a being like God existing outside of time. But even though it might help to avoid some of the dynamics of matter coexisting in real space, it cannot explain how any sort of being or mind could exist apart from time in a complete void. I think I have gone further to try to understand this concept than is strictly necessary but I don’t want to be accused of intellectual dishonesty. I conclude that the proposition of an atemporal God is a baseless assertion. And even if I have not made a convincing enough argument that this type of God is impossible, at least I have shown that there is no explanation of how it is possible to know this about God. And Lewis himself says that there is nothing doctrinal or factual to base this idea upon. I really tried to give Lewis a chance but I have to say that, all in all, Mere Christianity is mere rubbish. And I didn’t even talk about the unsupported nonsense he preaches about a universal moral law. I’m going to save that for a later time.
As I read this particular book, I was amazed at Mr. Lewis’ certainty about things which no one has or could have the slightest knowledge. Although Lewis often says that there really is no way to know such things, he prattles on as if he has inside information. One of the things about which he is absolutely certain with no basis at all is the notion that God must exist outside of time. Obviously, this is nothing new. I have heard it said many times, but never in so much detail. To give the idea a fair hearing, I tried very hard to conceive of a God who might exist outside of time. Before I go into what I think about the matter, I must say that Lewis doesn’t seem to really understand what it would mean for any being to exist in a timeless state because throughout the book (both before and after he claims that God is atemporal) he refers to God as eternal (a reference to time) and he talks about what God did in the past and what he will do in the future. How is it that he can say God is not subject to time and then refer to him as if there is some chronology to what he does or is? It is very curious.
The first thing that occurred to me when trying to conceive of a God outside of time is that a vast amount of our language could not apply to such a being. This certainly appears to make it rather impossible to understand anything about God even though Lewis himself seems to think we can. He boldly states that God cannot be thought of as having a past or future and that all time is as a single moment to him. But he blithely ignores that assertion as he goes on to say many rather ridiculous things about God. I got the feeling that this notion of an atemporal God was developed as a refutation of some complaints about the concept of God. For instance, Lewis says that some people wonder who was minding the universe while God, as Jesus, was living a temporal human life. Of course, this could also be answered by referring to the belief that God is actually three people in one. Lewis attempted to make a case for this as well although he flatly denies that this makes Christianity a polytheistic religion. He claimed that this is because in the spiritual realm of God it is possible for multiple beings to constitute one being. Apparently they are somehow dimensionally analogous to how squares make up a cube. Anyway, I’ll leave that for another time and go on with the discussion of an atemporal God.
I think it might be useful to make a short list of words that have no meaning when referring to such a timeless God. Obviously, references to time are out of the question including nearly any statement using words such as: then, now, next, before, later, after, when, again, whereupon, begin, end, start, stop, because, while, during, duration, progress, history, happen, occur, plan, intend, attempt, interval, wait, dwell, develop, proceed, abide, delay, etc. Needless to say, when referring to such a god it is meaningless to refer to any past, present or future tense or the passage of time. As a thought experiment, try writing a story about something happening without ever using a word or phrase that explicitly or implicitly mentions the passage of time. Truly, this God he speaks of is so alien to us that it is simply not possible to understand it at all. This all makes me more certain of my claim that the God these people worship is incomprehensible, unintelligible and incoherent. Ah, but there’s more.
It would be equally nonsensical, when referring to this God, to speak of cause and effect since a cause must come before an effect. There is just no other way for things to work. Oddly, Lewis tries to make a case for Jesus being the begotten son of God while simultaneously claiming that Jesus has always existed. This puts a rather insufferable strain on any notion of begetting. But this problem would crop up with any claim that God performed an action that had a beginning or an end. Similarly, nothing can be said to move or act if time does not exist. Movement requires time because it implies that a thing is in one place and afterward is in another place. If no time elapses, there is no movement. If the thing is in both places at once, it is overlapping itself all through the phases of the movement. And that is just ridiculous. Even thought requires time to progress from one idea to another. Progression is meaningless without time. To gain knowledge implies time because there must be a state before the knowledge was gained where it had yet to be gained. Oh, it hurts my brain to think about it.
Lewis says that God knows our future and past actions because, for him, they are all happening at the same moment. Just think about that. If all things exist at the same moment at every stage of development and every point of movement then everything would overlap itself and everything else using that space at what would otherwise be another time. Matter takes up space and it moves around in space. A dynamic system like the universe cannot all be contained in the same instant irrespective of time. All change and movement depends on time. If there is no time, everything would have to be static and frozen in space.
And everyone with the understanding of grade school science knows that our bodies and all physical things are made up of the elements of the universe. Each cell in our body and every molecule are replaced numerous times during our lives. As Francis Collins stated in his book, The Language of God, at one time the same molecules that were part of a rock or plant can at some other time be part of a person’s body. If time is an illusion created by God, as Lewis states, and all things really exist at once, how could the same matter simultaneously be part of a rock or tree and a person or fish? It makes no sense. We can also see an interesting result of this thinking in logic. Even believers in an omnipotent God will agree that he can only do what is logically possible. For instance, he can’t make 2 + 2 = 5 or make a rock too heavy for him to lift it. And virtually everyone will accept the rule of logic that says mutually exclusive things cannot coexist although they may exist at separate times. However, if time is illusory, this rule is either untrue or else mutually exclusive things cannot exist at all.
The whole concept of God existing outside of time is harder to swallow than a bowling ball. I even tried to invoke Quantum Mechanics, String Theory or M Theory to explain a being like God existing outside of time. But even though it might help to avoid some of the dynamics of matter coexisting in real space, it cannot explain how any sort of being or mind could exist apart from time in a complete void. I think I have gone further to try to understand this concept than is strictly necessary but I don’t want to be accused of intellectual dishonesty. I conclude that the proposition of an atemporal God is a baseless assertion. And even if I have not made a convincing enough argument that this type of God is impossible, at least I have shown that there is no explanation of how it is possible to know this about God. And Lewis himself says that there is nothing doctrinal or factual to base this idea upon. I really tried to give Lewis a chance but I have to say that, all in all, Mere Christianity is mere rubbish. And I didn’t even talk about the unsupported nonsense he preaches about a universal moral law. I’m going to save that for a later time.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Question of Faith
"Faith" is a term that has many nuances of meaning. It connotes belief in someone or something. It implies confidence and trust in its object. It is up to reasonable people to infer the condition that faith should be based on evidence and experience. Although it is a perfectly good word, it has been tainted by its religious use. Religions call for unquestioning obedience to dogmatic principles that have no rational justification. They ask for faith without factual evidence and offer no experiential basis for trust. Religion provides no better justification for faith than anecdotal evidence and appeals to nebulous spiritual ideas. This kind of faith has no practical application to the real world. In fact, religious faith can make people act contrary to common sense. For example, someone who has faith in God may believe that they are more likely to get a better job by praying for it than by improving their employability through education, experience and appearance.
To counter such disparaging remarks about their dogmatic faith, religious people (especially fundamentalists) sometimes say that faith in science is the same thing as faith in God. This argument sounds hollow. Generally speaking, those who can be said to have “faith” in science don't have a blind belief in the infallibility of scientists or of the scientific results. I just don’t think "faith" is the best term to describe their confidence in science. I think it behooves us to use the words that best indicate what we intend to say. Only if you intend to convey a blind following of scientific dogma would you be correct in using the term "faith". But this isn’t usually how rational people think of science.
It simply isn’t necessary to have blind faith (unfounded belief) in science. Science proves itself every day. We are the beneficiaries of innumerable products and conveniences that have been brought about by science. Many diseases have been eradicated through science. None of this scientific knowledge came from God. And religious faith doesn’t produce any such results. With science, it becomes less about confidence and more about what is obvious. Whether God can be proven true or false is beside the point. Either way, the reality of nature is staring us right in the face. Historically, we have been able to make the most progress as a species when we weren't worshipping Gods but are working with nature and observable facts.
Life and the universe are mysterious and they give up their mysteries grudgingly. And it is good to be open to any way to achieve understanding. But it is questionable whether anything valuable can be learned by following ancient superstitions and myths. One big thing religion claims to do is help people live moral lives. Perhaps that’s true in some cases, but overall there is no basis for that claim. Statistically there is no positive correlation between morality and religious belief. Trying to live a good life is a noble thing. I personally think it imparts meaning to life in the process. However, it doesn't require God or religion to do so. Nor does it require science. But here, there is definitely a conflict between religion and science. It is expressed in the difference between trying to find meaning that makes us comfortable and trying to find meaning in reality. In the end, there may be no ultimate purpose or meaning to life. That doesn’t mean our lives are meaningless. It just means we have to find meaning in the experience of life itself.
The common view of the relationship between religion and science is that science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena, while religion attempts to answer the "why" questions that deal with morality and purpose. Actually, science looks to answer all relevant questions that deal with reality. Religion doesn’t really answer any questions although it claims to have all the answers. It gives us comforting stories with lots of nice sounding metaphors and analogies to our own human experience. It promises us rewards for good behavior. In contrast, science definitively answers many questions. But because science goes where the evidence leads, we don’t always find comforting and pleasant answers. Unlike religion, science doesn't start with a predetermined conclusion.
Religions claim to tell us where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going after this life. Science has answers to all these questions, but they don’t make us all feel warm and fuzzy. The reason answers to these big questions don't appeal to some people is that we sometimes don't like the simple, unvarnished truth. The answer appears to be that we have no external purpose and that each of us has to determine what we want our purpose to be. It’s simple, but not comforting. Imagining a more satisfying answer leads us to difficulty and often delusion.
Don’t get me wrong. Imagination is one of the greatest things mankind has. Science is advanced by our imagination. It takes imagination to come up with a "what if" question and then test our theories against the facts, especially in the face of "conventional wisdom" that tells us the answers lie elsewhere. It leads us to greater understanding of our existence and can usually lead us to consistent answers that everyone can use. Religion (organized or not) leads to a lot of possible but implausible answers. By its very nature, it cannot give us consistent, unambiguous answers with consistent results. But it can make us feel good. Science may not be appealing to some people because it is utilitarian instead of warm and comforting. But it has a track record that warrants faith in scientific answers.
To counter such disparaging remarks about their dogmatic faith, religious people (especially fundamentalists) sometimes say that faith in science is the same thing as faith in God. This argument sounds hollow. Generally speaking, those who can be said to have “faith” in science don't have a blind belief in the infallibility of scientists or of the scientific results. I just don’t think "faith" is the best term to describe their confidence in science. I think it behooves us to use the words that best indicate what we intend to say. Only if you intend to convey a blind following of scientific dogma would you be correct in using the term "faith". But this isn’t usually how rational people think of science.
It simply isn’t necessary to have blind faith (unfounded belief) in science. Science proves itself every day. We are the beneficiaries of innumerable products and conveniences that have been brought about by science. Many diseases have been eradicated through science. None of this scientific knowledge came from God. And religious faith doesn’t produce any such results. With science, it becomes less about confidence and more about what is obvious. Whether God can be proven true or false is beside the point. Either way, the reality of nature is staring us right in the face. Historically, we have been able to make the most progress as a species when we weren't worshipping Gods but are working with nature and observable facts.
Life and the universe are mysterious and they give up their mysteries grudgingly. And it is good to be open to any way to achieve understanding. But it is questionable whether anything valuable can be learned by following ancient superstitions and myths. One big thing religion claims to do is help people live moral lives. Perhaps that’s true in some cases, but overall there is no basis for that claim. Statistically there is no positive correlation between morality and religious belief. Trying to live a good life is a noble thing. I personally think it imparts meaning to life in the process. However, it doesn't require God or religion to do so. Nor does it require science. But here, there is definitely a conflict between religion and science. It is expressed in the difference between trying to find meaning that makes us comfortable and trying to find meaning in reality. In the end, there may be no ultimate purpose or meaning to life. That doesn’t mean our lives are meaningless. It just means we have to find meaning in the experience of life itself.
The common view of the relationship between religion and science is that science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena, while religion attempts to answer the "why" questions that deal with morality and purpose. Actually, science looks to answer all relevant questions that deal with reality. Religion doesn’t really answer any questions although it claims to have all the answers. It gives us comforting stories with lots of nice sounding metaphors and analogies to our own human experience. It promises us rewards for good behavior. In contrast, science definitively answers many questions. But because science goes where the evidence leads, we don’t always find comforting and pleasant answers. Unlike religion, science doesn't start with a predetermined conclusion.
Religions claim to tell us where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going after this life. Science has answers to all these questions, but they don’t make us all feel warm and fuzzy. The reason answers to these big questions don't appeal to some people is that we sometimes don't like the simple, unvarnished truth. The answer appears to be that we have no external purpose and that each of us has to determine what we want our purpose to be. It’s simple, but not comforting. Imagining a more satisfying answer leads us to difficulty and often delusion.
Don’t get me wrong. Imagination is one of the greatest things mankind has. Science is advanced by our imagination. It takes imagination to come up with a "what if" question and then test our theories against the facts, especially in the face of "conventional wisdom" that tells us the answers lie elsewhere. It leads us to greater understanding of our existence and can usually lead us to consistent answers that everyone can use. Religion (organized or not) leads to a lot of possible but implausible answers. By its very nature, it cannot give us consistent, unambiguous answers with consistent results. But it can make us feel good. Science may not be appealing to some people because it is utilitarian instead of warm and comforting. But it has a track record that warrants faith in scientific answers.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Perfectly Impossible
While there are many areas of dogma over which theists of even the same denomination will disagree, one thing that most believers agree upon is the notion that God is perfect. However, it seems that many people don’t really stop to consider the full ramifications of this simple statement. It is too easy to just accept that a being capable of doing what God is credited with doing must be perfect. But, is it reasonable to make that assumption? I don’t think so. Although I won’t attempt to cover every possible angle of this question, I will look at what perfection means in human terms, how the perfect state of God is defined and how these definitions interrelate. I will also look at some arguments for and against God’s perfection and then propose a conclusion about the feasibility of the actual existence of a God who is perfect.
I do not intend to belabor the usual objections to God’s perfection by repeating such things as the “problem of evil” or asking how a perfect Creator can preside over an imperfect creation. Nor do I want to go into the details of God’s actions and statements in scriptures that show him to be less than perfect. These are valid points but I would like to take a little different approach in my treatment of the subject. What I really want to discuss is what actual ultimate perfection would mean. This is a question that has often been raised by philosophers and logicians. But my goal is to make this article less complicated and more accessible for the average person. I hope to state it in a clear and understandable manner without resorting to the use of formal logic or philosophical jargon.
Perfection is a very subjective thing. For most of us, perfection is a standard by which we measure our progress. It isn’t really a goal. It isn’t something we generally expect to achieve. Standards of perfection are typically not instantiated. They are ideals but are unattainable in any practical sense. If perfection is ever achieved, there is nothing left to achieve. Since we don’t generally strive for perfection in all things at once, I suppose that a person could try something different and still have something to look forward to. At least we have that option. An ultimately and universally perfect being would have no such option.
While there is a range of definitions of the word “perfect”, it is generally defined as: being excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement. Indeed this seems to be what most people mean when they say God is perfect. Another common definition refers to something conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type. It is doubtful that this could refer to God. Since the vast majority of theists are monotheists, the statement seems rather pointless. If there is only one God, he is both the best and the worst sort of God. To say that there is an ideal god type sounds ludicrous. There isn’t even a consistent definition of what a god is much less an ideal type.
We also use perfection in the sense of being without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings. But this definition also implies a standard by which to compare. For this definition of perfection, there must be the possibility of imperfection. Applied to God it would mean there must also be flawed or defective gods. Perfection can also refer to something that precisely fits a specific need or purpose. However, this would not explain God’s perfection as a being but merely his suitability for a purpose.
Anselm’s Ontological Theistic Argument from his Proslogion of the late 11th century is well known. It claims that we can use reason alone to prove that God exists. It states that God is “something than which nothing greater can be imagined.” God is the most perfect thing imaginable. Anselm further states that something that exists is greater or more perfect than something that is imaginary. So he concludes that God must exist. But there is no justification for saying that existence is more perfect than imagination. While I think we would all prefer to be real than imaginary, existence has nothing to do with perfection. We all exist and few of us would say that fact makes us perfect.
Anselm’s argument was refined and logically formalized by Decartes in the mid 17th century. But it is still little more than a gratuitous assumption. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant makes the observation that no matter what properties we may imagine for God, existing is not a property of a thing at all. To put a finer point on it, existence is a state of being, not a perfection. The question is whether our concept of God corresponds to anything real. Kant says that pure reason cannot answer the question of God’s existence (unless the concept of God is self-contradictory, in which case God cannot exist). He illustrates the error in Anselm’s assumption by rephrasing the argument thus: "Utopia is the most perfect ('the greatest') society conceivable." To conclude from this that Utopia must therefore exist is clearly ridiculous. Observation and experience are required to make that determination.
Saint Anselm’s argument is fallacious and it is also vague. It lacks specificity. He says that God is “something” and it is the greatest “something” that can be conceived. To say God is the greatest there is without specificity would seem to say that God is the ultimate in every category and aspect of being. But how could that be? That would make God the greatest conceivable author, criminal, philatelist, politician, mime, liar, comedian ad infinitum. So, I don’t think the ultimate “everything” is quite what Anselm had in mind. If he is saying that God is the greatest possible God imaginable, we need to know what the definition of God is and what standard is used.
If a comparison is to be made between a perfect being and a less than perfect being, it seems we must concentrate on specific attributes to compare. Given the anthropomorphic view of God it is not surprising that the attributes generally proposed for this comparison are those we humans find appealing. They are: knowledge, power, presence and goodness. The perfect versions of these attributes are: Omniscience (ultimate knowledge), Omnipotence (ultimate power), Omnipresence (infinite presence) and Omnibenevolence (ultimate goodness).
I suppose it would be silly to include tongue length in the list. Except that as mere imperfect humans we are woefully inadequate to dare decide what attributes are important when referring to God. Maybe God is very proud of the length of his tongue. Since we are told by theists and their scriptures that we cannot fathom the mysteries of God, perhaps we go too far when we presume to exclude any seemingly trivial attribute. God’s attributes are said to be nothing like what we mere mortals experience. Indeed, many will tell you that we can only understand a fractional approximation of what God is. At the risk of rendering God completely unintelligible, theists undermine our every attempt to gain any sort of understanding of God.
A thorough reading of the scriptures of Abrahamic religions will show that God displays many emotions and passions other than love. We read of emotions like jealousy, anger, hate, and pride. If God is a being than which no greater can be imagined, it seems that God’s attributes should include the ultimate version of these. But you will probably never hear God described as Omnipassionate, Omnisensual or Omniconceited. The obvious reason for these things existing in scripture is that some people got a little carried away with anthropomorphizing God. To top it off, some of these emotions are considered negative. But I guess its going too far to suggest that God might also be optimally bad.
Because God is said to be the ultimate in each of his attributes, he is the standard of perfection in each of them. For example, God is the absolute standard for goodness. But, in order to avoid circularity we have to refrain from using God as the standard of goodness when we are talking about God. The essential question posed by the Euthyphro Dilemma (derived from Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro ) is whether something is good because God says so or does God say so because he recognizes a universal standard of goodness? In other words, do actions or attributes have an absolute quality of goodness independent of God? This has to do with the question of what standard makes God perfect. Is God perfect because he meets an absolute standard of perfection, or is perfection defined as what God is? Is there a separate standard or is God the standard? If God is the standard then to say God is perfect is to say God is God. We have gained nothing. If God is not the standard, then something else exceeds or preceded God in perfection.
According to most theists, God has finished the journey to perfection or he was there to begin with. In either case, he is there, fully realized in all his perfect glory, and not in just one limited sense but in all ways. God is the epitome of the concept of perfection. He is omniperfect. The problem is that from a state of absolute perfection there is no room for improvement. What could a perfect being possibly strive for? What goals could he have? Once perfection is reached, by definition, no further progress can be made. Thus God must be become static because the only place to go is down. God simply has nothing to look forward to. If he has already reached the pinnacle of perfection in all things, what else could he do?
If this is a difficult concept to grasp, think of it this way. Let’s say you are climbing a mountain and you reach the summit. You have attained your ultimate goal. Since you cannot fly, if you move at all, you have started back down the mountain. Any change reverses your progress. You may stay there and stagnate but you cannot advance. This all demonstrates the fallacy of saying that God is perfect. If God has achieved ultimate perfection in all things, he can do nothing to increase his perfection. He must stop or go backwards. God would have to do nothing because doing anything beyond perfection could only make him less perfect. Not least because, even if the thing he’s doing is the best possible thing to do, it means he had not already done it which makes him less than perfect. In this case, it seems God would have to cease to exist because existence without action would render him useless. And that is an imperfection.
This leads to many other interesting questions. Does an absolutely perfect being need anything? The traditional God seems to need things of us. But being in need of something implies a lack. And that means imperfection. I wonder how our praise or worship could benefit a perfect God. Indeed, what could a completely perfect being possibly gain from us? We can only spoil his perfection. And why must we serve God? What can our service to God do for him? This is effectively what Socrates was saying to Euthypro in one of Plato’s dialogues. To imply that when you perform a holy or pious action you enhance God in some way, is a dangerous example of hubris. What then is the purpose of serving God?
If God is absolutely perfect and complete, why would he need or want to create us? I have heard some theists say that since God is perfect, he is perfectly free to do whatever he wills. That may be true, but in exercising that freedom he can only move away from his state of perfection. No matter the reason, if God created us, we became a part of what defines him. That makes him the God that created humanity. We would be forever intertwined with what God is. He would be diminished by our imperfection. But perhaps he was simply tired of stagnation. Or perhaps, ignoring the oppressive baggage of traditional religious dogma, a perfect being might simply create things as a mere byproduct of its nature without will or intent. God might be a perfect force that throws off creations in its wake. But if we are talking about a force without intention and purpose, why call it God? It sounds like a scientific theory of how things formed due to the natural forces and laws governing the physical universe. This tends to demystify the concept of God. It is probably unsatisfying for most theists.
It appears that a perfect being is no more than a myth, for several reasons. First of all, perfection is a subjective opinion and not an actual quality. Perfection is undoubtedly in the eye of the beholder. Absolute perfection implies a universal standard that is not in evidence. It also cannot circularly refer to itself and be meaningful. Ultimate perfection in an active being is impossible because any change can only move it away from ultimate perfection. I think it is also clear that vague appeals to our imagination are no help. There just isn’t any substitute for observation and experience. Unfortunately, regarding God, these are things we cannot have.
The entire point is rendered moot when we are denied our own definitions as tools for understanding. We cannot be expected to use some presumed supernatural definition. When trying to discuss any attribute of God, the final outcome will inevitably be that we, as mere humans, cannot understand a supernatural being. This tends to make the entire concept of God incoherent. We try to understand the concept of God but in the end God is so different from us as to be totally incomprehensible. Believers say it is important to know God and what he wants for us. But when pressed, they admit that God is ultimately unknowable. In that case, everyone is necessarily agnostic. The question is this: when faced with something unknowable, is it best to accept it as true or to reject it until there is some way to at least comprehend it?
I do not intend to belabor the usual objections to God’s perfection by repeating such things as the “problem of evil” or asking how a perfect Creator can preside over an imperfect creation. Nor do I want to go into the details of God’s actions and statements in scriptures that show him to be less than perfect. These are valid points but I would like to take a little different approach in my treatment of the subject. What I really want to discuss is what actual ultimate perfection would mean. This is a question that has often been raised by philosophers and logicians. But my goal is to make this article less complicated and more accessible for the average person. I hope to state it in a clear and understandable manner without resorting to the use of formal logic or philosophical jargon.
Perfection is a very subjective thing. For most of us, perfection is a standard by which we measure our progress. It isn’t really a goal. It isn’t something we generally expect to achieve. Standards of perfection are typically not instantiated. They are ideals but are unattainable in any practical sense. If perfection is ever achieved, there is nothing left to achieve. Since we don’t generally strive for perfection in all things at once, I suppose that a person could try something different and still have something to look forward to. At least we have that option. An ultimately and universally perfect being would have no such option.
While there is a range of definitions of the word “perfect”, it is generally defined as: being excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement. Indeed this seems to be what most people mean when they say God is perfect. Another common definition refers to something conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type. It is doubtful that this could refer to God. Since the vast majority of theists are monotheists, the statement seems rather pointless. If there is only one God, he is both the best and the worst sort of God. To say that there is an ideal god type sounds ludicrous. There isn’t even a consistent definition of what a god is much less an ideal type.
We also use perfection in the sense of being without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings. But this definition also implies a standard by which to compare. For this definition of perfection, there must be the possibility of imperfection. Applied to God it would mean there must also be flawed or defective gods. Perfection can also refer to something that precisely fits a specific need or purpose. However, this would not explain God’s perfection as a being but merely his suitability for a purpose.
Anselm’s Ontological Theistic Argument from his Proslogion of the late 11th century is well known. It claims that we can use reason alone to prove that God exists. It states that God is “something than which nothing greater can be imagined.” God is the most perfect thing imaginable. Anselm further states that something that exists is greater or more perfect than something that is imaginary. So he concludes that God must exist. But there is no justification for saying that existence is more perfect than imagination. While I think we would all prefer to be real than imaginary, existence has nothing to do with perfection. We all exist and few of us would say that fact makes us perfect.
Anselm’s argument was refined and logically formalized by Decartes in the mid 17th century. But it is still little more than a gratuitous assumption. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant makes the observation that no matter what properties we may imagine for God, existing is not a property of a thing at all. To put a finer point on it, existence is a state of being, not a perfection. The question is whether our concept of God corresponds to anything real. Kant says that pure reason cannot answer the question of God’s existence (unless the concept of God is self-contradictory, in which case God cannot exist). He illustrates the error in Anselm’s assumption by rephrasing the argument thus: "Utopia is the most perfect ('the greatest') society conceivable." To conclude from this that Utopia must therefore exist is clearly ridiculous. Observation and experience are required to make that determination.
Saint Anselm’s argument is fallacious and it is also vague. It lacks specificity. He says that God is “something” and it is the greatest “something” that can be conceived. To say God is the greatest there is without specificity would seem to say that God is the ultimate in every category and aspect of being. But how could that be? That would make God the greatest conceivable author, criminal, philatelist, politician, mime, liar, comedian ad infinitum. So, I don’t think the ultimate “everything” is quite what Anselm had in mind. If he is saying that God is the greatest possible God imaginable, we need to know what the definition of God is and what standard is used.
If a comparison is to be made between a perfect being and a less than perfect being, it seems we must concentrate on specific attributes to compare. Given the anthropomorphic view of God it is not surprising that the attributes generally proposed for this comparison are those we humans find appealing. They are: knowledge, power, presence and goodness. The perfect versions of these attributes are: Omniscience (ultimate knowledge), Omnipotence (ultimate power), Omnipresence (infinite presence) and Omnibenevolence (ultimate goodness).
I suppose it would be silly to include tongue length in the list. Except that as mere imperfect humans we are woefully inadequate to dare decide what attributes are important when referring to God. Maybe God is very proud of the length of his tongue. Since we are told by theists and their scriptures that we cannot fathom the mysteries of God, perhaps we go too far when we presume to exclude any seemingly trivial attribute. God’s attributes are said to be nothing like what we mere mortals experience. Indeed, many will tell you that we can only understand a fractional approximation of what God is. At the risk of rendering God completely unintelligible, theists undermine our every attempt to gain any sort of understanding of God.
A thorough reading of the scriptures of Abrahamic religions will show that God displays many emotions and passions other than love. We read of emotions like jealousy, anger, hate, and pride. If God is a being than which no greater can be imagined, it seems that God’s attributes should include the ultimate version of these. But you will probably never hear God described as Omnipassionate, Omnisensual or Omniconceited. The obvious reason for these things existing in scripture is that some people got a little carried away with anthropomorphizing God. To top it off, some of these emotions are considered negative. But I guess its going too far to suggest that God might also be optimally bad.
Because God is said to be the ultimate in each of his attributes, he is the standard of perfection in each of them. For example, God is the absolute standard for goodness. But, in order to avoid circularity we have to refrain from using God as the standard of goodness when we are talking about God. The essential question posed by the Euthyphro Dilemma (derived from Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro ) is whether something is good because God says so or does God say so because he recognizes a universal standard of goodness? In other words, do actions or attributes have an absolute quality of goodness independent of God? This has to do with the question of what standard makes God perfect. Is God perfect because he meets an absolute standard of perfection, or is perfection defined as what God is? Is there a separate standard or is God the standard? If God is the standard then to say God is perfect is to say God is God. We have gained nothing. If God is not the standard, then something else exceeds or preceded God in perfection.
According to most theists, God has finished the journey to perfection or he was there to begin with. In either case, he is there, fully realized in all his perfect glory, and not in just one limited sense but in all ways. God is the epitome of the concept of perfection. He is omniperfect. The problem is that from a state of absolute perfection there is no room for improvement. What could a perfect being possibly strive for? What goals could he have? Once perfection is reached, by definition, no further progress can be made. Thus God must be become static because the only place to go is down. God simply has nothing to look forward to. If he has already reached the pinnacle of perfection in all things, what else could he do?
If this is a difficult concept to grasp, think of it this way. Let’s say you are climbing a mountain and you reach the summit. You have attained your ultimate goal. Since you cannot fly, if you move at all, you have started back down the mountain. Any change reverses your progress. You may stay there and stagnate but you cannot advance. This all demonstrates the fallacy of saying that God is perfect. If God has achieved ultimate perfection in all things, he can do nothing to increase his perfection. He must stop or go backwards. God would have to do nothing because doing anything beyond perfection could only make him less perfect. Not least because, even if the thing he’s doing is the best possible thing to do, it means he had not already done it which makes him less than perfect. In this case, it seems God would have to cease to exist because existence without action would render him useless. And that is an imperfection.
This leads to many other interesting questions. Does an absolutely perfect being need anything? The traditional God seems to need things of us. But being in need of something implies a lack. And that means imperfection. I wonder how our praise or worship could benefit a perfect God. Indeed, what could a completely perfect being possibly gain from us? We can only spoil his perfection. And why must we serve God? What can our service to God do for him? This is effectively what Socrates was saying to Euthypro in one of Plato’s dialogues. To imply that when you perform a holy or pious action you enhance God in some way, is a dangerous example of hubris. What then is the purpose of serving God?
If God is absolutely perfect and complete, why would he need or want to create us? I have heard some theists say that since God is perfect, he is perfectly free to do whatever he wills. That may be true, but in exercising that freedom he can only move away from his state of perfection. No matter the reason, if God created us, we became a part of what defines him. That makes him the God that created humanity. We would be forever intertwined with what God is. He would be diminished by our imperfection. But perhaps he was simply tired of stagnation. Or perhaps, ignoring the oppressive baggage of traditional religious dogma, a perfect being might simply create things as a mere byproduct of its nature without will or intent. God might be a perfect force that throws off creations in its wake. But if we are talking about a force without intention and purpose, why call it God? It sounds like a scientific theory of how things formed due to the natural forces and laws governing the physical universe. This tends to demystify the concept of God. It is probably unsatisfying for most theists.
It appears that a perfect being is no more than a myth, for several reasons. First of all, perfection is a subjective opinion and not an actual quality. Perfection is undoubtedly in the eye of the beholder. Absolute perfection implies a universal standard that is not in evidence. It also cannot circularly refer to itself and be meaningful. Ultimate perfection in an active being is impossible because any change can only move it away from ultimate perfection. I think it is also clear that vague appeals to our imagination are no help. There just isn’t any substitute for observation and experience. Unfortunately, regarding God, these are things we cannot have.
The entire point is rendered moot when we are denied our own definitions as tools for understanding. We cannot be expected to use some presumed supernatural definition. When trying to discuss any attribute of God, the final outcome will inevitably be that we, as mere humans, cannot understand a supernatural being. This tends to make the entire concept of God incoherent. We try to understand the concept of God but in the end God is so different from us as to be totally incomprehensible. Believers say it is important to know God and what he wants for us. But when pressed, they admit that God is ultimately unknowable. In that case, everyone is necessarily agnostic. The question is this: when faced with something unknowable, is it best to accept it as true or to reject it until there is some way to at least comprehend it?
Friday, February 23, 2007
My List of Problems with Theism
- There is not one iota of unequivocal evidence that any God exists.
- God cannot explain all that exists because God itself cannot be explained. This claim just gratuitously swaps one mystery for another.
- Religions do not explain any mechanism or process whereby God created everything. It is effectively an appeal to magic.
- Religious faith is generally indistinguishable from gullibility. Trust and faith, as human concepts, are normally based on experience and reason. Religious faith is necessarily based on belief in unproved and unknowable things.
- A god or anything that exists outside the realm of natural reality is necessarily unknowable, unintelligible and incoherent. It is therefore irrational to believe in something that is supernatural.
- Religious scripture:
- is man-made
- contains many translation and interpretation errors
- is often self-contradictory
- often contradicts known facts
- promotes conversion by violence
- calls for punishment and death to unbelievers
- contains virtually no specific and unequivocal predictions
- contains only vague predictions beyond its own time
- contains many failed prophecies, predictions and unfulfilled promises of God
- Scripture contains too much that is vague, metaphorical and symbolic to be instructions from a divine being to humans. A perfect being would be expected to be able to communicate much better than that.
- In order to render most of scripture useful, it must necessarily be interpreted. This makes it easily twisted to support nefarious purposes.
- The problems with scriptures outweigh any good messages they may contain. If read at all, they should be considered opinion and philosophy and taken with a grain of salt.
- Morals are based on human sympathy and empathy, not on divine guidance. Establishing moral codes based on theism is unnecessary, riddled with contradictions, and fraught with danger.
- Religion is divisive in that it pits groups of otherwise indistinguishable people against one another. There are already more than enough differences for humans to fight over. And religion is the most intransigent of such divisions because many people feel it is a divine duty to revile those who believe differently than they do even if they don't see the reason in it.
- Religions are generally intractable when it comes to substantive compromise with other religions or belief systems.
- All suggested ways to perceive God rely on internal mechanisms that are subject to personal desires, suggestion, and mistakes. On the question of communicating with God, religion insidiously asks us all to deceive ourselves.
- People are animals. We are only special due to our more developed brain. (We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees)
- Abrahamic religions teach that the earth is only about 6000 to 10000 years old. All claims of a young earth are refuted by volumes of clear and mutually corroborating evidence in multiple scientific disciplines as well as a host of mutually confirming dating techniques that are not subjective or rationalized.
- Every culture that has existed has had God myths and other superstitions. This is often used as an argument for the existence of God. Rather than indicating that there is a true God, this indicates that people are simply attracted to the idea.
- Goodness, truth, wisdom and all other purported attributes of God are human concepts. When applied to a presumed entity so completely different in kind as to be supernatural, they are meaningless. The idea of God is thus incoherent.
- Infinity is a concept humans cannot comprehend except in a limited mathematical sense. If God is infinite, this also renders him unintelligible.
- Belief in an afterlife is insidious and detrimental to social responsibility and mental health. It demeans actual life and frequently leads to the notion that killing someone is, at least conceivably, doing them a favor.
- Organized religion wastes untold amounts of money and resources that could be used to care for people, promote real knowledge, and advance the human race.
- Theism puts God above people thereby making people subservient, unimportant and expendable.
- Religion relies on guilt, fear and outlandish promises to gain obedience.
- Theism generally precludes any possibility of testing God or questioning his existence substantively. It is something like the wizard of Oz saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
- The methods used in proselytizing for religion bear an unmistakable resemblance to the methods of confidence men. But the scriptures consider this the great commission of mankind.
- There are many good rational and logical arguments against theism but not one argument in favor of it that doesn't rely on a fallacy or assumption.
- There are so many Gods put forth by thousands of religions that no one could ever be certain of picking the correct one, assuming that one exists.
- Prayer is totally subjective and cannot be shown to have any more efficacy than pure chance.
- There is no discernable difference between believing in God and having an imaginary friend.
- People generally rely on facts and evidence in every human endeavor except religion.
- Unequivocal miracles do not occur.
- God supposedly speaks directly to the human spirit. This must be, at least partly, the same concept as mind. People who receive messages in their minds are invariably delusional.
- There is no positive correlation between belief in God and being a moral person.
- Populations that are predominantly theistic are almost invariably poor and undereducated. The converse is almost invariably true of populations that are predominantly atheistic.
- Populations that are predominantly theistic almost invariably have higher general crime rates, higher violent crime rates, higher murder rates, higher infant mortality rates, more disease and starvation as well as inadequate healthcare. The converse is almost invariably true of populations that are predominantly atheistic.
- Belief in religion has spawned uncounted cults that draw people in by appealing to the concept of faith without proof and the promise of prophets to come. Some examples are: Jim Jones and the People's Temple, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, Marshal Applewhite and Heaven's Gate. These groups had religious followers who were convinced to brutalize, mutilate and kill themselves and their children on the basis of this kind of blind faith.
- Religion has an extremely violent history that includes such things as crusades, inquisitions, genocide, terrorism and holy war. Untold millions have died in the name of religious icons and for religious beliefs.
- Religions have a long history of misogyny.
- Religion can be and has been used to support the concept of slavery.
- Religious dogma is practically immune to the incorporation of new facts. The best it can do is strained reinterpretation.
- The argument that God cannot be proven not to exist is irrelevant when one considers that to do so requires that the concept of a supernatural God be intelligible and coherent, which it is not.
- There is a well known argument commonly called "The Problem of Evil". It basically says that if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God exists, unnecessary or gratuitous evil would not exist in the world. Thus if God sees this type of evil and does nothing he is either not omnibenevolent because he doesn't care or not omnipotent because he is unable to stop it. There are many counter-arguments that have been used. However the only one that really could defeat the Problem of Evil is if one says that we cannot apply human standards to decide what is or is not gratuitous evil. This may well be true, but that argument renders God unintelligible and meaningless to humans. Either way, the concept of God seems to be highly doubtful.
- Theists claim that God has given humans free will. However, this free will is anything but free. The choices are forced on pain of death and eternal suffering. It is equivalent to having a slave and saying something like: "I grant you your freedom to leave at any time. But if you do, I will torture you mercilessly and kill you as slowly as possible."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
