God discussions

In discussions about God

I find it rather odd

That evidence demands such small attention,

Some accept uncritically

What from others they would see

As nothing more than obvious invention.

God talk

My metaphysics are in a mess. I've been going through a practical atheist phase now for some time. I've read the books, considered the arguments, examined the evidence, and for the most part I have to say the atheists make a great deal of sense. Religion of any sort often makes little sense. The Buddhists do pretty well by mostly ignoring the whole thing.

Perhaps they're on to something.


When ever we want to talk about something, even if it's with ourselves we use language. Our language started as labels for things. The words we used were non-material symbols for very real things. What makes language work is that, for the most part, we agree on what words signify. If I say 'apple' you have a pretty clear idea what I'm talking about. We can agree (and have a reasonable conversation about) apples because we agree on their properties.

But what does the word 'God' mean? For a start, no two people seem to agree on the nature and properties of God. Furthermore, a label distinguishes an object from its background, for example, 'apple' splits the world into two bits, that which is an apple, and that which is not. But God, if it is any sort of God at all, is not just another object in the universe, and we simply can't point to bits and say THAT is God, but THIS is not God.

That's why some modern theologians say things like God is not A being, but God IS being. God does not exist, but God is existence. Some people find this kind of talk unintelligible. Atheists can rightly point out it sounds like nonsense. But any talk of God is going to sound like nonsense because God is beyond language.

So what then should we do? I say, let's give up God talk. We all know what we have to do: be kind and compassionate. How hard can it be?

Destroying Idols

Many fundamentalist christians are vehemently, rabidly anti-catholic. Their main criticism is usually idol worship. After all catholic churches have all those statues. Statues are idols, right? Guilty as charged. Of course this shows a complete misunderstanding of the role of image in catholic theology. But something more subtle is going on in the critics' own backyard. Naturally critics don't like to look at their own backyard. They much prefer pointing out the flaws of others.

The commandment against idol worship is simple when it is restricted to physical images. But of course this is the most restrictive application of the commandment. By far the most dangerous idols are those of the imagination, the mental concepts we have of God that stand between us and the 'real' experience of God. When we think we know God, that He in some way 'belongs' to us, that he is understandable or understood, we cling to our conceptions of God.

This isn't faith at all, but a poor substitute which is more about intellectual knowing than trusting. As I have written before, it is the difference between clinging to wreckage in the water and learning to swim. Christian theologians have sounded this warning through the ages. They talk about the via negativa, the approach to God which depends on saying what God is not.

Buddhists have an interesting teaching in this regard. It is encapsulated in the saying: ' If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'. The idea being that any Buddha you meet is a concept that leads away from realization of the self. We cling to concepts. Real mysticism is letting go.

From a number of different sources recently I've had people use the old first cause argument to 'prove' God. Of course this is an old argument. It usually goes something like this:

1. There is a universal law of cause and effect.
2. To prevent an infinite regress of causes there must exist a First Cause.
3. The First Cause is God.

Sounds pretty good. But does it really stand up to scrutiny? To begin with is there really a 'law' of cause and effect and if there is, in what realm does it apply?

Cause and effect is actually a philosophical labeling rather than a scientific one. It comes with a particular mechanistic view of the universe as 'stuff' being pushed around by other stuff. It is a particular characteristic of Western thought. Buddhists, for example, speak of 'dependent arising'. Imagine a cat passing a fence with a hole in it and an observer on the other side watching. He sees the head and then the tail. He makes this observation a number of times and concludes (as a westerner) that the cat head 'causes' the cat tail since the head always precedes the tail in time in a predictable fashion. We know however, that such an analysis is faulty since the cat is a single system with inter-dependent parts. Some eastern philosophies see the whole world like this.

Now, in what realms does cause and effect (if it indeed exists) hold? In modern physics there is at least reasonable debate on whether some events are uncaused, and given quantum uncertainty can some effects actually precede their causes? It's very likely a strange world out of the realms of our experience that may act in a completely counter-intuitive fashion. So, the jury is out, cause and effect may NOT be universal.

People who quote first cause often turn out to be christians who believe in 'free will'. Decisions we experience subjectively are objectively electrical and chemical changes in the brain, stuff pushing stuff around. As such they too would be bound by this 'law' of cause and effect. Every mental event is 'caused'. Thus free will is ruled out on the basis of strict adherence to cause and effect.

Also, people use the universality of this 'law' of cause and effect to prove God but then immediately exempt Him from the law. God is eternal and uncaused. It seems a strange form of special pleading to me.

Thus, in summary, the law of cause and effect is a philosophical assumption, it may not hold in all reality, if it does hold it poses propblems for free will and the very 'law' you wish to use to demonstrate God is a law that does not apply to Him.

Note, now, I'm not saying this categorically disproves the notion of First Cause. Rather I'm saying that it is not particularly persuasive.