Monkseaton discussion paper 1

God - A discussion paper

1. If we accept that all that we have read about God has been written by man it is not too blasphemous to discuss a subject of such purely human origin.
2. Karen Armstrong[1] takes a very pragmatic approach to the word `God´; i.e. when men say that God is jealous and vengeful, then he is jealous and vengeful. If they say that God does not exist but that he is in all things, or that his nature combines aspects of father, spirit and human, then God has these properties. God is accepted as a product of man´s understanding, but a genuine product with a certain objectivity. I suggest we follow, and assume honesty in the reporting.
3. God therefore evolves. Man´s understanding evolves, his society grows more complex, his knowledge of science expands, and his vocabulary develops; so also does his description of God change. That is objective fact. And so (pragmatically) the meaning of the word God evolves, and so therefore does the nature of God itself.
3.1 God for Abraham was the creator of the universe, receiver of human sacrifices, jealous, destructive, vengeful.
3.2 God for Aristotle was the un-moved mover, a theoretical creation without feature, personality, or emotion; remote and unconcerned with detail.
3.3 God for Jesus was a Father, an object of love; a judge but also a forgiver, a carer.
3.4 God for Paul was a place in which to "live, move and have our being"[2].
3.5 God for George Fox was a `light´, a consciousness of right (and wrong), a quality inside ourselves.
4. Remember George Fox [3]: "Christ saith this, and the apostles say this (about God); but what canst thou say?" So let us ask what is my (i.e. your) experience of God.
4.1 Perhaps we can understand and echo St. Augustine "Thou hast prompted (man) that he should delight to praise thee, for thou hast made us for thyself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee." [4]
4.2 Perhaps we can turn Katherine Tait upside-down. Bertrand Russell´s daughter suggested that "human affection was for him (Russell), at bottom, an attempt to escape from the vain search for God"[5]. I would like to try it reversed: God may be, in essence, the product of our vain search for human affection. I understand (and share) a desire for human company, but am brought up too often against the imperfections of the real world. I can see God as a substitute for the inadequacies of human relationships. I can also see aspects in most people (if not quite all) that I desire and love -- kindness, justice, love, support, giving me a sense of worth -- and I can see God as an abstraction of these things. (I take it to be objectively true that: "There is a spirit ....... that delights to do no evil"[6]
5. Does God exist `out there´? Let us not ask "Does God Exist?" for we do not at this stage understand existence. But let us ask "Is God outside ourselves?" Fear is inside ourselves; as is hope. Is it sufficient for us to `worship´ a God that is a figment of our imagination? Probably not. Beware therefore of creating an imaginary God, by supposing he has the properties that we wish. (C.f. Augustine: "It may be that we should invoke thee in order that we may find thee....for `those who seek shall find´."[4]) It is possible to fear a bogey, and to love an imaginary figment.
5.1 It has been argued[1] that it is possible and indeed creative to imagine that which does not exist; God (like perfection or infinity) might not exist, but might be a genuine product of man´s creative imagination. But how useful is such a God? There seems something false about supposing justice where there is none, or perfection where there is only imperfection. I would rather seek some small aspect of kindness where there is indeed some kindness to be found.
6. If we want a transcendent, powerful, God capable of, and actually responsible for the creation of all things we probably have to be content to know nothing of him, and understand nothing of him; and say nothing of him. It is futile to look there for comfort.
7. To define God as the totality of existent things (including ourselves) comforts us, for it gives us a certain dignity; but it lacks human features, and does not raise up the `good´ in us and weaken the `evil´.
8. If we want a God we can love with all our heart and with all our soul, in which we can live and have our being, a God to love us and forgive us, then we probably shall find that God dwells in us, in each other, in our community.

References:
[1] Karen Armstrong (1993) "A History of God", William Heinemeann Ltd.
[2] Acts 17:28
[3] Quaker Faith & Practice,19.07
[4] St. Augustine of Hippo "Confessions"
[5] Katherine Tait (1975), "My Father Bertrand Russell", Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[6] Quaker Faith & Practice,19.12

Morpeth, September 2007.

photo2

`GOD´ FOR ATHEISTS (1)

`GOD´ FOR ATHEISTS 

[All my thoughts on the subject of "God for Atheists" eventually took form in a book by Ian West, pp. 100, published 24 October 2019 by AuthorHouse, 1663 Liberty Drive, Bloomington, IN 47403, USA. ISBN:978-1-7283-9399-5 (soft covers). Or email Cawstein@gmail.com for an electronic version. ]

Richard Dawkins has put the case against the existence of a supernatural personal God [The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006]. Many in the West would agree with him, but there will be many others who feel that Dawkins is at least partly missing the point about God. I would like to make a case for studying the concept of God more scientifically than is done by traditional theologians, but more sympathetically than is done by Dawkins. I shall ask what we really mean nowadays by the term God.

The “traditional theist”, whose views are attacked by Dawkins, believes in a God who is everywhere, eternal, omniscient, and all powerful –– see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism). He believes in a supernatural personal God essentially because he wants to, without really thinking deeply about the implications. The strangeness of the concept does not put him off, while the implied powerfulness inspires worship and the personal attention is reassuring. The atheist denies that such a God exists. For him the “super”-natural is as much a contradiction as a 4-sided triangle; and unsupported faith is in any case an unacceptable basis for holding a postulate as true. Both theist and atheist seem at this stage to be talking about the existence (or non-existence) of the same type of God. However, it is possible that many traditional theists have not thought deeply about what the term “existence” means. Existent things have mass, extension in space and time, and obey the laws of physics. We know of no other type of thing. Clearly God is not an existent thing; not a created thing. Like Father Christmas and winged angels, the concrete, thing-like, God is the way we understood matters when we were children. The supernatural God of the traditional theist is eternal, everywhere and nowhere, a law unto himself, and is self-creating; i.e. he is altogether different from all the things we have ever encountered. He is outside our knowledge.

If God is not a “thing”, what is he; a symbol perhaps, or an idea, or a power? For many physicists God seems to be an acceptable term for the laws of harmony and order that govern the universe. Einstein, though he freely spoke of God in a number of contexts, made it clear that he did not believe in a personal God who was concerned with human affairs. Steven Weinberg, another respected physicist and Nobel-laureate, has argued against these abstract uses of the word God, scoffing that “…..if you want to say that `God is energy,´ then you can find God in a lump of coal.” [Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage, 1993]. This abstract God of the physicist has no human aspect. It is likely that, for many people, it will be too abstract and impersonal, and it will have no emotional appeal. In any case this abstract God of the physicist is not the concept that Dawkins and Weinberg wish to denounce. Dawkins insists that, lest the word God “become completely useless”, it should be restricted to the type of God he wishes to deny; namely “a supernatural creator that is appropriate for us to worship” [op. cit.]. However, that simple, dare we say childish, concept of a magic-working God is clearly too simple for many reflective people. It raises intractable conundrums like “the problems of evil”, “freewill”, and “determinism”. It does not account for the local nature and the evolution of morals, nor explain the experience of “knowing God”.

Some of our earlier Gods were very different from the Dawkins God. The fat little figurines that are interpreted as fertility symbols presumably evoked some hope in the imaginations of their devotees by representing desired human characteristics. I very much doubt they were regarded as the creators of the universe. Bacchus is clearly a projection of specific human qualities (drunkenness, civility and good humour); the inventors of this god were doing little more than naming an aspect of human nature. Similarly with all the artificial gods of the classical world. None was regarded as the creator of the universe; nor was any of them much use when it came to morals. They were rôle models and inspirers. Even the jealous god of Abraham and Moses was presumed to combine the overwhelming power of the creator with a very patriarchal vanity. The wider you look the more it seems that all Gods have the powers that humans want them to have, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they have been created entirely out of the imagination of man. As such they may be part delusional, but part very real. God no more exists, or doesn’t exist, than does despair, hope, fear, hate, or love.

Richard Dawkins says “only supernatural Gods (are) delusional”. And many would agree. However, there are many uses of the term God and only some of them (like praying to God for rain) imply the supernatural. Others seem perfectly objective, and can often be helpful. Take for example phrases like: “God is love”; “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...”; “Walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in every one”; “seeking God’s purpose.” Let me try to show why these latter phrases do not imply a magic-working God, and why I regard them as objective.

To say that “God created the universe” may seem to be either a statement explaining the origin of the universe or clarifying the power of God. However, as we do not understand creation, it actually tells us nothing about the power of God; it merely identifies “God” as a valid name for an entity or power of a totally unknown nature, the doer of an unknown act. It makes little difference if you agree with the statement, or disagree. On the other hand, to say that “our conscience comes from an awareness of God inside us” does actually tell us something; not about our conscience, as would initially seem the case, but about the use of the term God; because we do already know what we mean by “conscience”. Likewise, if someone said “God forgives the repentant sinner”, Richard Dawkins might claim it means nothing to him, because he does not believe that God exists. But I would suggest that he knows very well what forgiveness means, and the role of repentance in the process. That being the case, our statement amounts to an explication of the term God; it gives us a further clue as to where God is to be found, and how God operates. In this case it is surely one’s community that forgives, informed by “concern for the injured, awareness of the fallibility of human nature, respect for altruism, etc."; this is quite a mouthful, for which the term “God" is shorthand.

For those of us culturally exposed to the God of Abraham (thus Jews, Christians and Moslems), it seems natural to regard “God” as the definer and judge of morals. For many people, words like “good”, “ought”, and “sin” would not make much sense if God did not exist. However, this may be another case of back-to-front derivation. For does “goodness” derive from God, or does God derive from “goodness”? Atheists have a concept of goodness, though it is surprisingly hard to define. Aristotle tried valiantly (and rather tediously) to derive a meaning in terms of fitness for purpose, and did not invoke God. Since Darwin it has become easier, and we can now readily believe that man, as a social animal, has evolved a moral faculty that is important for community living. It will be conceded by everyone that the average human possesses a dim inherent awareness of good and evil. Atheists will deny that God comes into it (meaning the delusional God of Dawkins). Others will be happy to talk of man’s moral sense as being an awareness of the “will of God” (meaning by “God” a projection of man’s moral aspirations, thus further illuminating the meaning of the word “God”). But this inherent moral force is weak, and depends on perceived kinship. Getting other people to act according to our morals has always proved to be the problem; the concept “God” seems, historically, to have been part of the solution. On this analysis we would have to conclude that the concept of God has been much misunderstood, and disgracefully misused. Yet society clearly depends on respect for this moral sense, and the collapse of religion has left something of a vacuum.

I believe that a proper understanding of the concept of God is a legitimate way of aiding our search for the right way to live. I do not think it is destroying the word “God” to use it in this way. On the contrary; I think it is naïve to ignore these perfectly valid aspects of the word. However, the word “God” is not itself the important point; it is the concepts of love, honesty, forgiveness, charity and mutual support that it would be hard to live without.