There is a trick in this title. I will explain.
How many times have we observed conversations along these lines?
Theist: God is a Rock.
Non-theist: Ah—so you mean God is a mineral matter variously composed, formed in masses or large quantities by the action of heat and water?
Theist: No—He is not that type of Rock.
Non-theist: Oh….then you must mean it metaphorically, as in God being solid, firm, steady. Right?
Theist: Partially. But not completely.
Non-theist: Then do you mean it in the form of being sweet and attached to a stick, like ‘rock candy’?
Theist: At times; but not all the time.
Non-theist: Or are you saying He is slang for a chunk of cocaine?
Theist: Absolutely not!
Non-theist: Well, if he is a rock, can he sit in my rock garden?
Theist: What?!! Who are YOU to question God?
Non-theist: As a rock, can he block a flood that will destroy homes and kill people?
Theist: What?!! Who are YOU to question God?
Non-theist: As a rock can smash down on some terribly evil people, and reduce or eliminate the harm they cause?
Theist: What?!! Who are YOU to question God?
Non-theist: I am not questioning God—I am questioning you. You are the one who said God was a rock. I am simply testing that premise. Yet everything “rocklike” I ask about, rather than defend your own premise of God being a rock, you avoid by claiming I am questioning God.
At times we see non-theists raise questions about God. We see, “Why did God allow 9/11?” or “Why did God allow the Holocaust?” or “Why didn’t God answer this prayer?” To which the single most common theistic response is, “Who are you to question God?” I will make this as clear as possible by bolding it:
We do not believe an actual God exists. When we ask these questions, we are attempting to reconcile what humans claim about God with what we observe. We aren’t questioning God; we are questioning YOUR premise YOU assert about the being.
Yesterday I encountered a frustrating problem. Every solution I attempted did…nothing. Nothing positive; nothing negative. I tried this; I tried that. After 2 hours, I had gained no new information, was exactly as I started, and the problem was neither larger nor smaller nor any different. Nuts.
Throughout that endeavor I never once asked a god for help. I never talked to a god. I didn’t figure any god was giving me a lesson in patience. I didn’t thank god once the solution presented itself. God simply wasn’t part of the equation in any way (in complete contrast to my life as a Christian.) Because he doesn’t exist.
In the same way, when I ask, “Why doesn’t God ____?” it is not as if I am thinking there is an actual God which actually did or did not do something. I am asking the human who is making a statement, how that statement fits with my observation. True, it is more proper to say, “If you claim God is X; can you explain this event in light of the properties we humans associate with X?” Perhaps from now one I will phrase my questions in this laborious manner.
For example, one commonly hears God exhibits the properties of “Love.” In my human experience, “love” includes communication. More importantly, it requires (at times) a person to communicate in a way in which the recipient understands. I love my children. It does me no good to communicate to my 8-year old on my terms, if those terms are insufficient for her to grow and learn. It is useless for me to use an example of driving a car—she’s never driven a car. It is completely useless for me to use the word “nuance.” She doesn’t understand what “nuance” means.
I understand “love” to include bending and molding my communication to suit the needs of the person receiving my love. This certainly raises the question of “Why doesn’t God communicate to people in a way in which the individual person can understand?” The theist may reply, “Oh, but he does, through God moments or the Bible, or the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an or…” Yet this is clearly insufficient, because we have a number of people (including other theists) quite confused as to the attributes of God.
Now the theist retreats to God’s love being different than our love. ‘Cause our love includes communication God’s love does not. But if God’s love is different—what can we mean by saying God has “love.” The whole POINT of the statement is to communicate a property of God at least similar to a human concept!
When I tell you a person is “mean” or a person is “stingy” or that fellow “loves” that gal, or she “hates” him—those words, “mean,” “stingy,” “love” and “hate” are portraying concepts we use to relate to each other. It is ridiculous to claim “God is Love” and then immediately claim “but when I say that I don’t mean ‘love’ like you define ‘love’—I mean it some completely indefinable way.”
Great.
I don’t question god—there isn’t one. I question a person who makes an adamant statement about what this thing…this “god”…is like, and then claims their statement fails to conform to anything I recognize.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
DagoodS wrote:
ReplyDelete"It is ridiculous to claim “God is Love” and then immediately claim “but when I say that I don’t mean ‘love’ like you define ‘love’—I mean it some completely indefinable way.”
It seems ridiculous to me also. The prime directive of Christianity is to "love." "...Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." If "God is Love" then a Christian cannot actually follow that God if God remains indefinable.
Should one actively follow "God's" example and kill all unbelievers by drowning or "God's" examples of mercy? One can go either way if the only thing informing the decision is the bible. Christians argue that love is defined in places like I Corinthians 13. One part of the that definition of love is: "...love keeps no record of wrongs...." If God follows that command, there is no reason for hell.
In the normal course of living, who follows a hypocrite? Who follows one who dictates "do as I say, not as I do?"
Speaking as a theist, my reaction to this post is probably a little simplistic, but I think it captures the problem.
ReplyDeleteBasically, I think the problem comes from the inherent imprecision of using human language and terminology to describe something beyond human comprehension. It's a bit like explaining quantum mechanics to a five-year-old. The language is going to have to be imprecise (to match the child's vocabulary) and there is a very good chance that the concept will not be understood completely (or even well) by the child, but hopefully s/he will be able to grasp something out of the conversation (other than tears regarding the fate of Schrödinger's cat). Where words fail, trust (i.e., faith) necessarily has to fill in the gaps.
Speaking for myself, I think of my "picture" of God as an impressionist painting. Looking at a distance of three inches, the brush strokes (or verses) don't make sense and don't appear to be part of a coherent picture. Back up six feet, and there is a definite image, and one that captures certain elements (play of light and shadow for instance) in a way that a photograph cannot, even though it is light years ahead in terms of definition.
Yes, this is a part-neo-orthodox, part-liberal way of looking at it, and it won't convince fundamentalist Christians on the one hand or true atheists on the other, but I'm just telling you how I see it (and probably a majority of mainline Christians and others).
I'll reiterate my standard disclaimer regarding my comments on this site: I'm not here for conversion. I'm here for dialog and understanding.
flycandler wrote:
ReplyDelete"Speaking for myself, I think of my "picture" of God as an impressionist painting. Looking at a distance of three inches, the brush strokes (or verses) don't make sense and don't appear to be part of a coherent picture. Back up six feet, and there is a definite image, and one that captures certain elements (play of light and shadow for instance) in a way that a photograph cannot, even though it is light years ahead in terms of definition."
Or back up a gaziilion miles (how far is it to heaven and God's throne?) and God doesn't exist.
:)
I've never seen God from 3 inches or 6 feet, so it becomes more a question of existance vs. perspective for me.
That's what I'm talking about, Paul. It's a problem of language. I am forced to use metaphor due to the limitations of both my human understanding and English itself. Take any metaphor to a logical extreme, and it will sound silly. Shakespeare wrote, "but soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun." Presumably Shakespeare never intended that Romeo was under the impression that his love was a giant gaseous ball of fusing hydrogen atoms.
ReplyDeleteflycandler wrote:
ReplyDelete"It's a problem of language."
dagoodS wrote:
"In my human experience, “love” includes communication."
I agree with dagoodS.
If "God is Love" and God wants God's followers to love, that God would come up with a means to communicate all that in a manner that God's "creation" could perfectly understand. The onus is on "God," not people, to acomplish that understanding.
While we, as people, might be saddled with the limitations of language, God would not be.
Flycandler,
ReplyDeleteI understand the analogy of explaining quantum mechanics to a five-year-old, so I don’t want you to think I am tearing apart the analogy while missing the point. But can I point out three things in response?
1) Believe it or not, you CAN explain some parts of quantum mechanics to a five-year-old. When I was researching it, my (then 7-year-old) asked what I was doing, and I explained some aspects of it. Using pictures and words and communication at her level, she at least grasped some idea.
However—here is the key. When I was done, I asked, “do you understand?” to which she replied, “Sorta.”
“Do you want me to explain it again?”
“No, that’s O.K.”
Probably bored at that point. Do you see what happened, though? I had an opportunity to determine whether my communication was effective, and continue to interact with her if it was not. Where does God do that?
“God, I don’t understand—can you explain?”
Silence.
“God, I really like what you’ve done—this is great!”
Silence.
“God, can you help me out here?”
Silence
“God, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”
Silence.
2) The one failure with analogies of parents/children or greater knowledge/lesser knowledge, as pointed out by paul, is the analogy assumes human limitations. As a human, I can only communicate in English, in the knowledge I have, and with my limited vocabulary. My child can only understand within his/her limitations, albeit we expect those limitations to lessen over time.
God has no such limitation. Perhaps the most disconcerting notion in this regard is Mark 4:11-12. A situation in which Jesus tells a Parable to a general audience. Both the general audience AND “those around him” didn’t get it. They missed the point. Jesus then specifically explains the parable ONLY to “those around him” and notes if he had give the explanation to the general populace, that general audience would have understood it too.
See what happened? Jesus deliberately withheld communication he knew would have been beneficial. (These verses have caused Christian scholars many a headache.)
Springing off your child/quantum mechanics analogy—imagine I provide a story to explain quantum mechanics to two of my children. Both wander off puzzled, trying to figure out what the story had to do with anything. One child I explain how the analogy applies to quantum mechanics, and note, “If I explained it to the other child—they would have understood, too.”
If one is going to posit Jesus as a God, and claim he loves through communication, one might have to explain how Mark 4:11-12 fit in that picture. What criterion is the person claiming their god concept uses to determine who to talk to and who not?
3) Finally, it should be noted in my deconversion process, I only asked God to show himself. I didn’t ask for an explanation to how to create, or how to make light bend, or how to split an atom. I only wanted presence.
Again, springing off the quantum mechanic; as the five-year-old I didn’t want god to explain quantum’s—I wanted a hug. Can you explain how a god concept of one that “loves” would refuse to do so? Most likely not.
Can you explain how a god concept of one that “loves” would refuse to do so? Most likely not.
ReplyDeleteThe most honest answer I can provide is "no, I can't explain". Our associate pastor touched on this Sunday in his sermon: "I do not necessarily believe that the Bible is a book of answers, so much as it is an invitation to ask deeper and more complex questions. But I also disagree with the idea that the preacher's job is to answer questions. The best sermons I have ever heard do not answer my theological or practical questions; instead, they open my mind to consider new possibilities.... They help me to ask new questions."
Food for thought.