(You may add comments by clicking the 'comments' link at the foot of each 'post')

Monday 16 February 2009

Defining God II

(For previous sections see below)

Title

          God II: a God for atheists

3.  Defining the God II concept

After a generation of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, signs of accommodation appeared in the last few years of the twentieth century; bitter and lifelong enemies sat down to negotiate a lasting peace. One religious lady, approaching the end of her life, welcomed this as clear proof that God can and does influence everyday events in the real world. I, in my sceptical youthfulness, objected. I said "Aren't you being unfair on the humans involved? Are you not underestimating the goodness to which men can rise?"  I now think that I was being naïf. What, after all, was meant by 'God' in that context? Perhaps 'God' is a valid word for the goodness that men can rise to. Perhaps that always has been one of the meanings of this confused and confusing concept we call God; a valid meaning hidden amongst a multitude of errors.

In previous sections we introduced the possibility of a second type of God concept (God II) as an alternative to the discredited aspects of the traditional God concept (God I). And we considered the possibility that God II is not a substance, but a concept, and as such might be better though of as 'not existing', but rather as 'subsisting'. Here we try to define God II.

One approach to defining God II would be to take the traditional idea of God and scrupulously pare away all traces of God I; that is to say, we shall discard the internally contradictory and the clearly counterfactual. God II does not do tricks, nor break the exceedingly consistent laws that have been found to govern our physical universe. When we are dead we shall lack eyes and so we shall not see God II; we shall lack brains and so shall not even think of God II (nor incidentally of any previously deceased relative, neither 'in the spirit' nor 'in the flesh'). God II is not directly responsible for the local weather, the germination of seeds, or the miraculous survival of accident victims. But likewise God II is not a conniving party to crimes against humanity, is not responsible for earthquakes and other natural disasters, for the brutal murder of innocents or the callous neglect of millions of humans all over the world. We find that God II does not exist, is not a thing, does not have mass or occupy space. If God II subsists, it subsists not in eternity but in the present. God II will not reward good people in a future heaven after they are dead; nor will he punish wrongdoers in a future hell after they are dead. There may be rewards of virtue which we may call heaven, and there may be torments of conscience which we may call hell; but they affect the living not the dead.

What is left? Two divine functions remain that have not yet been discarded as clearly contradictory or against experience; that of God the Creator, and that of the loving God (or God made human). Of the former I have little to say. This is perhaps the un-moved mover of Aristotle, or what Richard Dawkin's called the God of Einstein ("I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings". [Albert Einstein]). Is this Creator perhaps also the divine mind whose thoughts are Plato's forms? Or is creation simply an inexorable property of numbers that makes symmetry inevitable, and generates matter and antimatter out of nothing? Of all this there is little to say for as yet we do not know how creation is done. Of the loving/human God, dismissed by Einstein, there is much to say, and that is why I write this. People pray to God, give thanks, ask for guidance, they seek God's blessing when they marry, and when a child is introduced to the world. People endeavour to be good, to discern the right action, to eschew the wrong action, and to be forgiven for their failures both of omission and commission. Perhaps above all there is a human need to be valued, and to feel the value of life. These are the functions of what I call God II.

You may object that morality is a purely human creation, that love hate, pride and guilt exist in the mind of man (and maybe also of other animals) completely without the need to postulate a God. They are totally human. That is of course true. But that is not a reason for us to turn our back on them. We may talk about these things, and to do so we may call them X, or Y, or GOD. Being totally human does not prevent them being divine (in our new sense), any more than it prevents them being coarse, or purple, or valuable, or beautiful. Those things (though totally human) that make us feel good, or bad, or that give us a sense of purpose, can repay, and do require, careful study. This matter of God II can be, and should be, an objective study; it should not be a matter of brainwashing, or rhetoric, or emotional self-delusion. Nor should the matter be avoided as tosh (for we have removed the toshy part); nor left to be talked about only by the confused.

There is no need to believe in God II. Just think about morality, and your reasons for being moral. Think about your neighbours, and the process of being neighbourly. Think about your feelings (or feel your thinking). The study of God II is a practical matter, not a hypothetical exercise.





Cawstein,
12 Longhirst, MORPETH

No comments: