by VorJack
I’ve just read John Scalzi’s wonderful novella The God Engines, where humans find themselves dealing with Gods who are both more and less than they appear (and finally answers the question, “what does God need with a starship?”)
Scalzi gives us Gods that need – or at least benefit – from human faith and worship. I’ve seen this idea used before, in everything from comic books to Terry Pratchett. The idea is that faith gives sustenance and power to Gods, creating a sort of market in which Gods trade favors and blessings for worship. It’s pretty close to some of the worldviews of the ancient world, where Gods could be bribed and placated with worship and sacrifice.
This gives us Gods who are identifiable as human – powerful and enigmatic, but with human motivations. That’s probably part of the point for the authors; it gives the Gods some human drives and a way to work them into the plot. You try writing the ineffable and see how far you get.
But it does raise the question of whether or not we can trust these Gods. How do we know they have our best interests at heart? How do we know they can deliver on their promises? To the ancients, every misfortune was evidence of divine displeasure, and every stroke of good luck was a sign of divine favor. Ironically, any God that existed at that time would never have needed to do anything for its worshipers; just be around to take credit for life’s ups and downs.
But what about now, when we’ve left such human-scale Gods in the dustbin of history? What about our modern God, beyond all description and human understanding? I’d argue that we’re now in a worse position than before. What motives might such a being have? Presumably most of the human motivations, plus a whole realm of motivations that we cannot even articulate.
If there’s anybody who has the capability to lie to us, it’s the being who supposedly knows our innermost thoughts. If there’s anyone who can maintain a poker face, it’s the invisible guy. And how do we seek to analyze something that is supposed to be beyond our understanding?
I’ve seen people try to argue from the Bible. These are usually people who also believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. So we’re being asked to take God’s word that God is playing straight. Frankly, it seems like this is one of those problems that can only be answered with faith and a shrug.
A good rule of thumb: Any being with unknowable motives and utterly alien morality is to be considered Chaotic Neutral if they leave mortals alone, and Chaotic Evil if they interfere in mortal business.
These same thoughts have been playing on my mind recently. How do we know that a god is telling the truth? Assuming for a second he exists, and actually speaks to us, if he said that he always tells the truth, then the only way we could know that to be true is if it was true (circular logic for breakfast, anyone?). On the other hand, if not true then it is still within his character to say it. Hence we have no reason to trust what this god says; only naive and childish faith.
I love the Atheist Experience’s take on this. It basically boils down to “How do you know it’s not all a test and the people who go to heaven are the ones who reject such an obviously immoral doctrine/god?”
Related is the statement “Maybe God isn’t good just because he says he is. He could very well be the bad one and the devil the good one; you’d never be able to tell.” That’s what happens when you take things only on faith: You plain don’t know anything about it, otherwise you wouldn’t have to take it on faith.
The “gods” in that book sound suspiciously like the Goa’uld from Stargate SG-1.
“Frankly, it seems like this is one of those problems that can only be answered with faith and a shrug.” Indeed, but when it comes to trust what cannot be answered with some sort of faith and a shrug? Does one really know the complete motivations of their family, friends, neighbors? Surely one does not have unrestricted access to the internal influences of any one person and thus must infer whether they can be trusted. Yet an inference is only that: an inference. There is no deductive test for trust. One can never escape the necessity of faith.
The quantities of faith involved are just a teensy bit different.
How does one exactly quantify faith?
This apple will fall down when I drop it -> little faith
The sun will rise again tomorrow.
Oil is limited.
Evolution did happen.
Smoking is bad for our health.
Climatic change is happening.
Climatic change is man-made.
Democrats wouldn’t have begun Iraq’s war.
Republicans favour economy.
God exists.
God exists and he cares about us -> A lot of faith.
See? Every assertion involves a different amount of faith
I don’t think it’s necessarily assertions. Everything that happens happens — does god cause it or not? Most people who believe god exists and who do not believe god exists wake up every day with at least a little idea that nothing bad will happen to them, or hope. Maybe they have a feeling or a little more information to guide them whether they could get fired any day of the week, or their car will break down, or the public transportation will also be broken (it happens a lot more in Boston than I’d like).
Consider 2 couples trying to have a baby. They both have information (medical and biological) and are proactive toward achieving that goal, and one couple prays by the end of the cycle that it will be the news they are hoping for, and the other couple does not pray because they have already done everything they can, at least that month. Both situations are leaning on the trust of biology to give them their wanted outcome. Praying does not help the first couple any, for they have also done everything they can do.
Is their god trustworthy if they don’t turn out pregnant? I think they would say god had a reason to delay or prevent a pregnancy, and keep trying, while the second couple trusts in biological function to perform the same fertilization, all the while waiting to see whether or not they also have to keep trying, and, given enough time, when to try something else. It’s not god telling them, it is their bodies. To me, that is about the same amount of faith in essentially the same thing.
There again, you have religious folks who don’t know how babies are made and thinks they are sent by god. That’s not what I’m talking about.
“To me, that is about the same amount of faith in essentially the same thing.”
No, it’s not. The first couple has faith in an invisible non-supported by evidence God who will decide if they deserve a baby or who will choose upon their will if they are going to have a baby. The second couple know that every intercourse has a chance to get her pregnant, and that there are some ways to improve their chances.
The second couple does not need faith, it’s only probability.
Maybe we are using different definitions for “faith”?
I’m more speaking to the “whatever happens, happens” position all of us are in. Is god trustworthy? I think if you put him as a conscious figure who decides to make things up as a “plan,” people who are religious trust him to know what’s best for them, and atheists are in the same position without any events predecided for our own good. I don’t even think I’m talking about a definition of faith.
The question was, “is god trustworthy?” From the atheist side, he sure seems to look out for very small matters and let very big ones go, people suffering and disasters, etc. That doesn’t seem very “trustworthy,” if you are trying to consider that he is supposed to be benevolent. Rationalizing His will as a “plan” is one way to go, but these things still happen even with no explanation. Rationalize that that’s the way it goes sometimes. A person gets run over by a bus, god’s will (and secret reasons)=these things happen sometimes.
I mean we are all in the same place, trusting our lives to fit into the world around us. A religious person and an atheist can make identical plans and identical actions to achieve their goals. The power of prayer adds nothing except a concept of aid to the religious person. Will both their goals be met? It depends on the world around them, it always does.
I think versions of gods are all temperamental. The difference is whether you think he is crafty in a human and self-serving way or if you think he is capricious and unguessable for our good. Who would worship either one? I think most religious people today believe in the second kind. We don’t know why he is so mean, just that it’s for our own good, and he is god, and someday we might get the point of why he does things that appear wrong. There is trust that he knows how to run the show and not to question it even if his processes are counter-intuitive. A believer will believe everything happens for a reason, that it’s designed or caused, and that some entity is consciously deciding for it to be, and we don’t need to know why. He knows.
Since I don’t believe in god, I don’t attribute all that happens to a creator deity at his will. Every day, every one of us at the very least hopefully trust that we can get through another day. Many people do not give that idea full attention, but we trust the process of living, of things working like we expect, it’s how we make plans and appreciate the world going on around us. Some people are a lot more cynical than that, and I would say in a superstitious way also (sometimes, if you are listening). For some, everything is always going wrong, that the world is against them somehow, and possibly attributing it to other ideas like karma, or possibly not. I’m not sure what karma is — I think in the buddhist line, it is not knowing what you may have done in a past life to deserve the life you live in this one, while non-buddhists will likely think if they do good deeds, they should receive well in the same life, and probably in the same week. I think it (non-superstitiously) tends to work this way, that if you are a positive person, positive things happen because that is your frame of mind. A negative person misses the positive things or actively, perhaps unwittingly, operates against good things, and then blames everyone else for a pile-up of misery.
But trust. Most of us have no other way to live life than to wake up and trust in the universe and if it goes wrong sometimes or most of the time, it’s just one of the possible outcomes. Blaming others is … it happens on both sides of belief. Blame can be a harsh word, but we ourselves are not god and can’t make everything go the way we think it should. Either it is god’s will or one of the possible outcomes of the events happening locally or globally. We’re not alone, that doesn’t mean there’s a puppeteer. I suppose belief in god makes it easier for some people to roll with things because it’s all part of the biggest picture. If there is no reason, some people just fall apart. They trusted and were kicked in the groin out of nowhere, or out of karmic spite or retribution. Is god trustworthy? I think fictionally he is more trustworthy because that’s the only way some people can cope.
It’s a very human thing to imagine an either-or between immanence and transcendence. It’s a foolish and proud thing to imagine that such a chasm could not be bridged. And then the man Jesus turns up in all his humanity and claims to perfectly reveal the unseen Father. And he stoops and loves and cries and bleeds and suffers and dies and says this is the uncreated glory. You either look at Jesus and say “Yes, that’s the heartbeat of reality” or you reckon something else to be more fundamental. But either way you trust in something.
Personally I don’t trust and shrug, but trust and rejoice – God really is that *great* that he would make himself that *small*.
I love the way you present it as an evenly balanced choice of trust there Glen.
Either you trust in an old book that says a magic-man-god sacrificed himself to himself for a sin that was only a sin because the people who committed it weren’t supposed to know about sins, but discovered they had sinned after they committed the sin, but that the sacrifice only works because you believe all of the aforementioned, and if you don’t you go to hell for eternity anyway, even though it wasn’t you that committed the sin…
Or you don’t.
Personally, I don’t trust and shrug, but try to maintain a healthy skepticism.
Also, you “rejoice” in a meaningless gesture of unnecessary self-correction that an omnipresent and omnipotent god could have changed just by going back in time and stepping on a talking snake’s head. You really have a low standard for rejoicing.
Only a religious mind could consider an immanent and transcendant being to be possible. One of the things which baffles me most looking back on my religious faith is how obvious contradictions were made to sound like wisdom. This is one of those.
+10 Internets for blotonthelandscape for awesome summarising.
blotonthelandscape – you’re right that stepping on the head of the serpent is the solution (Gen 3:15). Dangerous work. Yet Christ did it – and was struck – not via a time-machine! but on the cross. This is the greatness of his sacrifice. And that’s my point – in Jesus we have the resolution of vorjack’s dilemma: We can’t trust the all-too-human pagan gods and we can’t trust the all-too-inhuman philosophical gods. But we can trust the transcendent God who descended to the very depths of our plight.
You say “Only a religious mind could consider an immanent and transcendant being to be possible.” Where to begin with that? If you want to take seriously the Christian God you cannot think of him as ‘possible’! He simply *is* the immanent and transcendent God – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But since he is this God, he has no difficulty in being transcendent and immanent! Again – it is utterly foolish and proud to say God *cannot* be both, and it shows how very limited your conception of “omnipotent” really is.
But if you want to join vorjack in opposing all the gods that fail to be transcendent and immanent – I applaud you. But the God of Jesus Christ is not in that category.
Omnipotent is not a characteristic described in the biblical text. It’s a concept created that isn’t supported at all by the reading.
elizabethdamaro – ‘omnipotens’ is a perfectly reasonable translation of ‘Almighty’ (Shaddai), and indeed the one used by the latin vulgate; cf Gen 17:1. But you’re right it’s got far too many philosophical connotations. I ordinarily wouldn’t use it at all – I only brought it up because blotonthelandscape did. I was just drawing attention to the foolishness of blots position – prescribing what an omnipotent God can and can’t do.
No, it isn’t. It is closer to “one who bestows benefits, one that is enough”
While “el” deals with might and strength and power, shaddai attached deals more with “all sufficient”.
To leap to ominpotent is a mistake in English translation to “almighty”.
This is why studying these texts is important.
LXX has pantokrator, but I grant that we don’t want to hellenize too much!
Let’s go with ‘all sufficient’. Would you agree that it’s foolish to say God the All-Sufficient has difficulty being over all (transcendent) as well as in all (immanent), no?
My conception of omnipotent is very limited. According to my conception, an omnipotent God wouldn’t have any problem winning against a bunch of iron chariots.
An omnipotent and omniscient God wouldn’t have created a being who betrays him -yup, origin of evil?
And by the way, you still consider Jesus’ sacrifice as a great sacrifice, while it was a bounded one -in time- for an eternal person -wow, he was death 3 days!- and at the same time consider that an eternal punishment fits for any fault?
“If you want to take seriously the Christian God you cannot think of him as ‘possible’!”
Why are we still arguing?
That’s true: you risk realising he’s not.
“God really is that *great* that he would make himself that *small*.”
I don’t think any christian church teaches this. You could be stoned to death.
“You could be stoned to death.”
… well that would be better than Glen boring people to death.
:) So I manage to be both death-deservingly outrageous *and* deathly dull at the same time?
DarkMatter, what I’m saying is the very central confession of every Christ – *Jesus* (the One who lived and died in weakness and shame) is Lord.
Again, this is the solution to the dilemma about the gods. Jesus is the only God that can be trusted.
… arghhh – give me some rope so I can be put out of my misery now.
No wonder Eastbourne is such an boring place to live. Those Sunday mornings must just fly past!
“what I’m saying is the very central confession of EVERY CHRIST”
No, you are lying. And that’s not what you have first said.
sorry DarkMatter – typo. I should have said “the central confession of every Christian.”
“Personally I don’t trust and shrug, but trust and rejoice – God really is that *great* that he would make himself that *small*.”
Still you have not explain your rejoicing of a great god making himself small. The crucifixion has nothing to do with what you have said.
Let me quote from Vorjack’s article:
About the pagan gods he said: “But it does raise the question of whether or not we can trust these Gods. How do we know they have our best interests at heart? How do we know they can deliver on their promises?”
Then he says, “But what about now, when we’ve left such human-scale Gods in the dustbin of history? What about our modern God, beyond all description and human understanding? I’d argue that we’re now in a worse position than before.”
The cross says that the God beyond our understanding was dissected before our very eyes. The Great One can be trusted, the one on our level is not capricious but utterly self giving. I still say Christ crucified is the answer to Vorjack’s dilemma – He’s the One God we can trust.
“The cross says that the God beyond our understanding was dissected before our very eyes.”
No, it did not say it then. Maybe that is why you are rejoicing. You again could be stoned to death.
The bible doesn’t in any way support the idea that Jesus died “in weakness and shame”.
What an odd thing to say! What do you call a man who is stripped, flogged, punched, spat on and crucified while the soldiers gamble for his one possession?
Paul summed up the whole bible’s proclamation on the matter: “He was crucified in weakness” (2 Cor 13:4)
it’s hardly odd, since the text claims:
Jesus is God and willingly gave up his life. It was *not* taken from him.
And there is no “shame” represented either. Not once does Jesus ever give up his position or rank. He goes to meet them.
That his body was beaten shows only a body being “weak”. That is flesh, which is irrelevant.
:) Which is it Elizabeth? Is Jesus so wrapped up in God-ness that he doesn’t suffer? (“It was *not* taken from him.”) Or are His sufferings so contained in His humanness that they prove no weakness? (His flesh being “irrelevant”)
!
The whole bible and the whole historic church say the God-man suffered and died in weakness and shame.
Glen, since its all based on nothing but what is said in an old book of fairy tales the argument of whether jesus died in shame or not is as reasonable as an argument regarding the color of the wolf that ate red ridinghood. As for the article itself, since gods are fictional their trustworthiness is not a real issue. However people who claim to speak for gods should be regarded with the highest levels of suspicion.
Yoav, I’d liken it more to an argument between Shakespeare buffs. Incomprehensibly some are trying to claim that the bard never wrote a tragedy. I say “Don’t be ridiculous, he wrote loads. What about Lear?” And they say “He was a *King* it couldn’t have been tragic.” And while I’m reeling from the force of the logic you burst in with a pile of unsubstantiated polemic, “Your discussion is irrelevant. Francis Bacon wrote the whole thing!”
Once again – to claim that the bible and all of Christian history does not herald the Lord who died in weakness is an astonishing refusal to face facts. What is the symbol of Christianity? What is the one ritual you’ll find in every kind of church worldwide – a remembrance of the Lord’s body torn apart like bread, His blood poured out like blood. Here is the Almighty who stoops to our level.
So I salute you as you oppose the invisible sky daddy and as you deride the pagan gods and goddesses – but in Jesus you have someone very different.
Thanks all. My last comment.
“Thanks all. My last comment.”
Thank Allah for that …
Yes, he is the humble King but the King (of Kings) no less.
It is fair to say that, with respect to the cross, His passion, His descent into the lower realm of matter and darkness that He ‘stooped’ for us. He led the Way in humility, in selflessness, gave all even His very life which is all He asks from us in return, its a fair trade.
“What is the symbol of Christianity? What is the one ritual you’ll find in every kind of church worldwide – a remembrance of the Lord’s body torn apart like bread, His blood poured out like blood. Here is the Almighty who stoops to our level.”
I know it was your last comment but… what the hell?? This ritual is not about crucifixion, communion is about being one with God as Jesus did on the last dinner. It’s not a remembrance of the crucifixion.
And by the way, it is similar to ancient canibalistic rituals.
@Francesc.: That’s exactly what it is, at least it certainly was for me and in the churches I was raised in. It was a time to remember Jesus’ sacrifice, in keeping with his command to “do this in remembrance of me”. His communion at pass-over was prophetic of his death in the coming days.
ok, sorry, I stand corrected :-)
‘I don’t think any christian church teaches this’.
Its not the ‘church’ that teaches us, its Christ Himself who is the Teacher, who teaches us. (Eph 4:21)
Then what is the point of churches?
I think it’s called a steeple.
He. Good one.
Have you become the vice-jester while Ty is away?
We all have a responsibility to keep our chins up and avoid despair for Ty’s absence any time we find the opportunity to do so.
Don’t think nobody knows you are misinterpreting eph 4.
Which part of the body of christ are you? Maybe you are that little finger tapping on the keyboard. Tell us where you are and we can send someone over to collect the finger(you) for analysis.
You could be the proof of the existence of god.
Human mind is pretty good rationalizing. Vorjack gave us an example: “To the ancients, every misfortune was evidence of divine displeasure, and every stroke of good luck was a sign of divine favor.” The concept of random events doesn’t seem all that natural for us. Our logic is pretty linear: cause and effect.
When you were religious the existence of your God was a premise, all you needed to do was explain in your logic his actions. As I said, we are pretty good doing this. At when even that fails, “God is ineffable”.
About the post… I’ve asked that same question before to christians: even assuming that the bible was written or inspired by God, how do you know he said the truth? Can’t God lye? How do you know that the best for us is to follow his rules?
The God of Abraham never states that man’s best interests are at heart. The God of Abraham is depicted as having *His* best interests at heart. The concept that somehow this will always be beneficial to man isn’t supported by the text outside of sheer contentment of circumstance and perspective in an outcome that could go either way – making the best of what we’ve got so to speak.
Which, actually, is all we’ve got anyway, even without religions.
Yep, the pact Abraham makes with God is more of a business arrangement than anything to do with love. “You and your descendants must worship me and bring me offerings. In return I’ll bless you with wealth and a huge offspring and vanquish your enemies.”
Even the the word “love” is used differently in most of the OT than it is in the NT.
Again, that pact is too similar to the pact with the Ori (stargate)
Help me understand why you brought up “love”?
I suppose you mean me? If so, I brought it up because love is supposed to be the main thing connecting us to God (ask any Christian). However, the OT form of love is rather different from this general feel-good relationship found in NT. “Love” in OT usually means keeping whatever bargain has been struck between God and some patriarch. When God loves you in OT it means he fulfills his end of the deal by giving you some benefit – and vice versa.
I see no difference in the demonstrations of “love” in the Old or New Testaments. The idea that this god somehow changed is flawed. The description given to Moses is the same description we see in the gospels and letters.
Demonstrations of God’s love in the Old Testament? Where? When he kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden? When he drowned the whole world? Maybe it was when he led the children of Israel into the wilderness and made them go around in circles for 40 years in what should have been a week’s journey, until almost all those who set out died in the wilderness?
I’m not sure what you think “love” is, but based on your post, I’d suggest you do a little research.
You sound like the kid who got told to go to bed at 9 that kicked and screamed that mommy and daddy weren’t fair and hated him.
Love looks like a lot of different things (I’m of course not talking about the hormones and chemistry in the brain). Every single one of those examples can be depicted as beneficial as well.
Exactly how did God drowning the whole world turn out to be beneficial in any way? (Just for the sake of argument – I’m not saying I believe it actually happened).
That’s me alright. When I have a chance I’ll read your comments more carefully. Maybe then they’ll make sense.
Insulting people by declaring them petulant for not wanting to be drowned isn’t really answering the question and makes me suspect you don’t really have one. God kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden cannot be argued to be beneficial. They were in paradise, now they’re not. That’s a net loss. God killing everyone isn’t beneficial to them, since they died and never had the opportunity to repent and change their ways, so again it’s a net loss. God leading his chosen tribe around the desert while many of them die and they make no real progress on their journey could possibly be argued to have left the tribe with only the strongest members left (in a rather ironically Darwinian sort of way) but those strongest members would still be weak from hunger and thirst and an omnipotent being could have just made the entire tribe strong and carried them to the promised land on a magic carpet.
This isn’t love, it’s abuse by a petulant, capricious entity who acts far more like a the child being told it is past its bedtime you describe than trj has.
I mean nomad, not trj, my bad. Heh, nomad, an appropriate name for discussions of wanderings in the desert.
Heh heh.
I was wondering, if Yahweh had been clear from the beginning about what was in store for those he liberated from Egyptian bondage, how many would choose to go. I think the potential exodi would like to have known that, if they were over thirty, they were likely to die before they reached their destination. What Yahweh failed to mention to them is that, you the individual would not likely get to the promised land. Only you as a people. Love. With a little deception on the side. Hmmmm. This modus operandi sounds familiar.
Bait and switch. He could have also mentioned that ‘Unless you do everything I say I’m going to kill you’. And that you would have to eat the same mysterious food for breakfast lunch and dinner for the next 40 years. ‘What? Don’t like it? Then I kill you.’ Now *that’s* love.
Trusting a god is like trusting your cat. You can talk to him, ask him for favors, and when he doesn’t answer, just guess what he is thinking. You’ll inevitably begin to project your own desires and fears into your guesses about the cat/god’s thoughts (which in reality may be about food and naps).
The gods occupy the same mental space as childhood imaginary friends: they’re a safe way to separate our uncomfortable fears and desires — as well as our generally healthy paranoia about the universe being out to get us — into a safe place, or personage, that we can relate to, appeal to or blame.
Personally, I think you’re better off with the cat. At least he’ll catch you a dead bird once in a while.
“Trusting a god is like trusting your cat.”
Well, in my case, it is exactly the same thing :-p
@Glenn: “Let’s go with ‘all sufficient’. Would you agree that it’s foolish to say God the All-Sufficient has difficulty being over all (transcendent) as well as in all (immanent), no?”
Loaded. One doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the other.
@Glenn: “:) Which is it Elizabeth? Is Jesus so wrapped up in God-ness that he doesn’t suffer? (“It was *not* taken from him.”) Or are His sufferings so contained in His humanness that they prove no weakness? (His flesh being “irrelevant”)
!
The whole bible and the whole historic church say the God-man suffered and died in weakness and shame.”
No, the text states the flesh was beaten and the flesh is irrelevant according to the text. It is last priority. The text supports that Jesus voluntarily gave up his life, that it was not taken from him. No where does the text support that the God of Abraham would ever feel “shame”, nor does it state the Christ did.
Also, the suffering of the Christ only dealt with the physical body being beaten (see above). That in no way means the god is weak.
The concept of God making Himself small stems from the manger, not the cross. The cross is seen as the strength of the god, the manger is seen as the humility to be a babe.
I’m not sure why he’s getting this confused.
He needs a reason?
Someone should really take “lizzy” by the hand and show em how reply works.
Someone should really take “sunny” by the hand and explain that the replies are limited in the thread.
You can keep using the reply on the last thread that has one. That’s how those really long arguments form..
Nope, there is no reply option on those discussions.
What Paul is describing is the practice of replying to the first post in that layer of the thread when you run out of reply markers; the practical result is the post appears directly below the one you were intending to reply to.
Baby, using the reply button is not a sin.
Even if it is you’ve already got that covered eh?
wow. you’re kind of a jerk aren’t you?
Yeah, but he’s the good kind.
good is a relative term.
I’m sure that it is.
LOOK AT ME!
Jesus showed me where the reply button is. HALLELUJAH!!!
If Jesus can show a a godless Atheist like me how to do it, surely someone so accepting of His Love, like you, can do it too!
Elizabeth is an atheist, Sunny.
That just makes what I said even funnier. Thanks!
Self-deprecation for the win!
Can God Be Trusted? I found out. I LITERALLY wrote the book on the subject- It’s a 160 page books titled HOW GOD RUINED MY LIFE by: Jay M Horne