That Ever Shifty God Thing...

I’ve been watching the reaction to The God Delusion with growing fascination, rather like one might watch a slow motion disaster.  It’s like any great tragedy: ultimately futile but dramatically irresistible.  None of the arguments that are being dredged up to refute Dawkins’ prose are in any way novel (anyone who read George Smith’s 80’s classic Atheism: the Case Against God would scoff at anything they read in the book reviews), and yet they have a kind of poignant nostalgic quality.  You have to feel for the people who still think that they have any rhetorical force any more.

One of the more slippery attempts involves dodging the question.  If we dastardly atheists try to pin people down with what they mean by “God,” they change the definition to suit the moment.  Saint Gasoline has disassembled a case that is so transparent the slow disambiguation is a sight to behold.  As we have seen previously, first the apologist attempts to discredit Dawkins by calling him unscholarly.  But we have seen this before; it’s unremarkable and not particularly convincing.  He then goes on the real attack, saying that the ”god” Dawkins attacks is not the real God, but some atheist strawman god.  The real God, he says, has no attributes beyond being the ground of being.  Not anthropomorphic, no sir.  Pure nothing, that’s the ticket.  Oh yeah, and by pure nothingness I meant Jesus of Nazareth too by the way.  Saint Gasoline asks:

So Eagleton wants to argue that God is not like the Loch Ness monster and not subject to the same types of existential criticisms because of this fact, but then goes on to argue that God IS in fact like the Loch Ness monster, in that he has revealed himself physically and was actually a political criminal. If Eagleton wants to criticize Dawkins by saying God is something unknowable, and then try to justify Christianity by positing Jesus Christ as something knowable, then he surely needs to just choose a side and stick with it. Which is it, Terry?

Well put, blessed Saint of volatile hydrocarbons.  This is a classis case of trying to have it both ways.  The theistic enjoy deference for their particular brand of weirdness about who or what created or started the universe and what the whole thing means, and yet they steadfastly refuse to engage in the debate about who or what that might be.  Is it some immaterial and unquantifiable principle, or is it something just as real and just as immediate as the guy down the street with the bottle rockets and the loud stereo?  Make up your mind one way or the other and let us know.

I’m not holding my breath though.  Take as much time as you need.

- jack*

Comments

[Zenji]

Jesus springs from the Ground of Eternal Being. But then again, so do you, and i, and everyone else. Duh.

One reason you get these kinds of reductionist arguments is because some of us are Reductionist thinkers. Theists, though, at their root, posit a Divine Mind.

Now, from my point of view, all Mind is Divine. All of it. If you believe in your own mind then you believe in something Divine, by my reckoning.

But that's not particularly interesting, in light of the standard theistic recitation of Powers and Divine Characteristics being applied to a theoretical OverMind. You'll have to decide for yourself if such a higher order of mind might be possible. I am talking, though, about a Natural phenomenon, a higher order of consciousness in the Universe with us. Before you say impossible, i ask you to soberly consider the large variety of natural phenomena that you are directly aware of.

Ultimately, who's to say? If this overmind exists, you will ask, why does it not contact us? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, maybe it doesn't exist, i dunno. Did it take over the body of a man 2000 years ago and utter some cryptic utterances? Bah, who knows. Who cares? The thing is NOW.

Not all theists have the same conception of God. My religiosity comes from divine experience. I'm uninterested in Dogma, i've read the Bible but i don't read it regularly. I prefer Zen, to be perfectly honest, but i do believe in God.

The hindu mystics used to say (and probably still do) "Tat Tvam Asi" which means, Thou Art That. When you seek the Divine, YOU are the divine that you are seeking.

[Jack]

Why would any intelligent person waste their time debating the existence, or the reality of a God? Religion is a matter of belief, not a matter of fact. There is no logical debate concerning the existence of God. It works for you or it doesn't. Next issue, please. Now you have time to discuss the the role of religion in public institutions, i.e. school, government, the law, etc. It has no role. It's a belief that each is entitled to hold and free to practice and to preach, but not to burden others with. That's what is so pernicious about the believers. They're not satisfied to be free to believe. They too often expect that their beliefs should be a guiding light for all people. They forget that others have beliefs that differ from theirs and that some have no beliefs in reagrds to God. That's the debate, not whether or not there is a God. Who cares any way? I'd be more than satified if the true believers kept god in their hearts rather than on their shirt sleeves.

[pm]

However, it is entertaining to listen to people argue about who has the superior imaginary friend.