Hello, you need to enable JavaScript to use this network.

Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.

We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate

Chuck Butcher

What Have We Done To "God" ?

First published on Chuck for...

Generally speaking humankind seems to have a desire to have a Supreme Being, a Creator of the Universe. This would seem to bear some implications for His attributes, the size and scope of the creation. All the stars we can and cannot see down to the subatomic particles making up all of that creation infer a huge act of creation, something well beyond the scope of human concrete conception. We can blithely speak of millions of light years, but our reality is much more constrained, we look at an ocean and know it is larger than what we see, but our conception is limited to "a lot of water," estimates regarding the gallons of that ocean could be made, but there is again a limit to our ability to conceive, we know what a gallon is, but after a certain number it exceeds our ability. This limitation of concept is important, it puts God in a realm beyond our capacity to deal with in concrete conceptual terms. Religion fills this gap.

Religion acts as an interpreter and conduit between limited humanity and the Creator of the Universe. This is accomplished through rules of conduct and rituals of contact and it is here that difficulties ensue. Religions depend on intermediaries such as Jesus, Mohammad, Prophets, Popes, etc. to write the rules and rituals, these intermediaries are the voice of God or the hand of God, divinely inspired. The difficulty is that these are also humans, using human language and concepts, with all the limitations involved in being human.

Words are human derived concepts, love means what it means in human terms, this is not necessarily a universal concept, nor is it even universal amongst humans. But we apply these human concepts to the creator of a universe as though our conceptual framework is somehow applicable to the entire universe. In this process we get to statements such as "I am a jealous God," a phrase that with God replaced with your own relationship definition, ie: husband, friend, etc. would place you in an unattractive category. Behaviors are rewarded or punished by the Lawmaker. There grows from this a certain narrowness and even meanness of behavior on the part of God. Only certain specific intermediaries offer salvation or other rewards.

Ancient religions endowed their gods with very human attributes and some really childish behavior at times and some current religions continue the practice in very nearly the same form. The more modern versions of gods seem a bit more adult in behavior but still reflect very human methods and rationals. The teachings of Christ himself, as quoted, were a huge advance in kindness and concern for our fellows but the New Testament as a whole reflects attitudes of a god much less oriented in that. The figure of Christ is very nearly other worldly and yet the God is very reflective of the world.

The apparent reason for various iterations of God to have such a close resemblance to ourselves rather than the Universe is that limit of comprehension of the very large we face. A personal god that steps out of our reach becomes something other than personal, in fact becomes unfathomable. While the greatness of god or gods has long required intermediaries, this role becomes meaningless if the intermediaries try to present something beyond comprehension, something where gibberish may as well replace words. Science has created huge problems in this respect, not with things like evolutionary theory that bother so many, with elements of scale. Gods remained pretty much within grasp when the stars were lights in the sky and very small was something you could hold in your hand and see, when something near the scale of creation came to have definition, gods began to skid badly.

Today we have some idea of what the Universe is about and some idea of its scales of very large and very small and gods haven't kept up. Our gods still have to speak to us in terms we can understand but we have an idea of the disconnect between that and the scales. This disconnect isn't just felt by the scientific community, little children know about the concept of light years thanks to sci-fi shows and microscopes are commonly understood. At some interior reach this touches chords that may not be fully recognized but still are vibrating away.

Here we are in a modern enough world that ignorance of these things is scarce and yet fundamentalism is rising. The absolute word of various Books is law and sacred and irreproachable. The gods become more rigid and more human in behavior, it is seriously postulated that a Christian God smashed an entire city to punish a few libertines. We would chastise a 5 year old for similar behavior on the same motivation. I only use this Christian example as one generally familiar to my readers, there are plenty of other examples and not nearly enough time? How can this be so?

When a matter of faith collides rather spectacularly with fact something must give. It is horridly difficult for either faith or fact to be dispensed with entirely but something still must give. What gives is that piece of us called critical thinking. God must coexist with reality so therefor rather than modify God to fit, God simply becomes more rigidly defined and locked in place in defiance of the forces pushing for change. Even when there is no action taken against a God he is perceived as under attack. God is under attack, but not from external forces, the Devil in this case is internal, the battle between awareness and faith. Faith demands that the God of the Books continues to exist as defined in those books and reality keeps demanding something more to deal with those scales of existence.

There certainly are religious approaches that attempt to deal with this, they are frequently referred to as liberal theology, but their adherents still face that scale problem as they attempt to hew to the Books. The Books become more subject to interpretation as allegories and advanced understandings of evolving meanings. This loosening of the bonds has consequences as larger and larger portions of the Books become optional or reinterpreted. One consequence is that the sects of the same Book become almost unable to communicate within that framework and anger and distrust is engendered.

As some sects become more liberal the more conservative or fundamental become more so in response to the apostates. The feeling of being under attack is increased by the betrayal by their fellows and a hardening of position ensues. Government is increasingly looked to as a protector and advocate. A tightening of ranks occurs, the not like us are increasingly despised and denigrated. Threats are seen everywhere and the god must be strengthened, both by his followers and in himself, he must be dangerous to oppose.

This is scarcely the first period in history to go through such upheavals. The historical record is full of examples and when they are closely examined large social and scientific changes were occurring. Gods and religions that very much should have been of salutatory effect on their followers became instead agents of harm. Pick the time and the god, what he became was one angry mean son of bitch. Not a god I care for.

Tags: religion, society

8 Comments

Tara Comment by Tara on June 30, 2008 at 12:22pm
This is a great overview of the situation. But I am not sure what exactly you are suggesting we need. More religion? Less religion? A greater religion? Does religion inherently contradict itself? (Conundrum of ideal infinite vs. pinning this down into human rules and rituals).
Sean Elliott Comment by Sean Elliott on June 30, 2008 at 12:38pm
Chuck, I take it you've read or heard of "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris? If not, you might be interested in reading it. The premise seems to be similar to your own: that God (or rather the concept of a god) is not neutral, nor positive, nor negative, but in a state of constant fluctuation between the purposes of those who can and don't mind seizing upon the power the name evokes.

In response to Tara then I would venture the answer lies in one's ability to tolerate both the bad and the good that religion can do (I didn't notice you had distinguished between religions of any particular type so size and shape should yield the same results at different scales).

I am of the opinion that any positive effect of religion can be replaced by a force that causes less collateral damage.
Chuck Butcher Comment by Chuck Butcher on June 30, 2008 at 2:21pm
I'm not competent to tell anyone what to do with it, Tara, other than think about it.
Justin Comment by Justin on July 1, 2008 at 1:03pm
Excellent article, Chuck. It is an ambitious topic to cover, and (Lord knows) there are plenty of books out there that have also attempted to do so. As a former Literature Major, I would recommend Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine by the Yoda of English Professors, Harold Bloom.
While the arguments over religion and its place in society often are between those with faith and those who champion disbelief, there are still important themes and lessons to be learned from religious texts, including those from Ancient Greece, which we now call myths. I read all these texts as myths, and by choosing to read them as literature, I side-step the notion of faith and by doing so I unburden the texts and well of myself. The Sermon on the Mount is great literature as well as a first rate lecture on morality and altruism. The Torah, just as Greek mythology, represent traditions that explore the limits of understanding our existence as humans and our individual place in humanity. You don't need to believe in the stories to absorb a greater understanding of yourself. Turning the Judeo-Christian God into a character like Zeus or Odin doesn't necessarily demean him, but it can equip one with the tools of literary criticism by which one can better understand the divine and our relation to it.
Chuck Butcher Comment by Chuck Butcher on July 1, 2008 at 1:36pm
This article has been sitting in draft for a year, I ran out of steam and lost my direction which is fatal to this kind of thing. You can't get away with half-thoughts on this topic.
Chuck Butcher Comment by Chuck Butcher on July 1, 2008 at 11:55pm
I seldom have much to say about my personal faith, let's just say that I don't like the idea of a limited god.
Justin Comment by Justin on July 2, 2008 at 12:20am
Billy Jack, I may have unwittingly exposed my beliefs here or there, but I'm not sure that there is a strict correlation between political leanings and faith. Personally, I like to keep politics and religion separate in my head, though the influence of religion on our politics sometimes makes it impossible to speak of one without the other. It's unfortunate for good debate, because policies can be debated with reference to statistics and precedents, while religion reflects only ones personal faith in the divine. I'm not really sure about the religious beliefs of people on weoped, but I would think that those who do believe would probably not discuss it much in this forum, because it is such a personal belief.
Katie Comment by Katie on July 4, 2008 at 12:04pm
How come it's mostly the dudes that delve into the heavy stuff?

Hmm, which point to tackle first?...Well, being sort of tangentially connected to a close-knit religious community, I have to say being around it makes me feel like I’m in another era. I find that kind of observance quaint, which is I guess to say I don’t have the kind of respect for strict religious adherence that others do. At the same time I think “OK, if God doesn’t want you to turn on lights or cook on Saturdays so you can think about Him, does He allow touch football before the festive meal?” I don’t know. I guess it depends how it is written.

I also find it interesting when religious groups, through their own rationalizations, find that they have to change their rituals to make their beliefs fit the modern world. Isn't that like admitting maybe their religion has gotten something wrong. There are just too many contradictions between a world that’s supposed to change and beliefs that are not supposed to.

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate to add comments!

Join this network

RSS

Guide to We Op-Ed

Promotional

ShopPBS.Org

Let People Know

Spread the word. Get your own We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate badge for your website or MySpace page. (Get Code)

Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate brought to you by Weoped LLC © 2008 Report an Issue | Contact Us | Privacy | Terms of Service

Spread the word. Get your own We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate badge