- Nov 10, 2013
- 1,689
- 569
- 113
- Faith
- Other Faith
- Country
- United States
God is a self-contained hypothesis, the manifestation or revelation of something totally different from anything else in our experience. It can neither be verified nor falsified. These two criteria cannot be applied to something that does not claim to be subservient to our reason. If there were a convincing mathematical proof of the existence of God, God would be a mathematical object.
We need an image or icon of the divine adapted to our means of perception which is why we have an anthropomorphic idea of God.
The God of monotheism stands above all human principles and requirements of the human mind. If we claim that God permits evil, God cannot be good and omnipotent, or the contradiction between free will and predestination; then we have already abandoned monotheism.
God does not descend to the moral round table of logical, philosophical, mathematical, or ethical discussions because he is infinitely beyond all of this. Those who think otherwise are degrading monotheism, and simply using it to justify their own beliefs and judgments. God cannot be used to certify our uncertainties, or a "God of the gaps" to cover our uncertainties and ignorance.
God overrules whatever is repugnant to our reason or ethics. To accept monotheism is to overcome whatever immoral commands the God who is the very ground of our awareness, and moral sense has given us.
There is nothing extraordinary about an Abraham acquiescing to God's command to kill his only son, for God is the one who has given him this sense of moral nausea in the first place. Lest we forget, this is the same God who has already told Abraham to pack his stuff and leave his home with no destination in mind as well as commanding him to slice off the foreskin of his penis. None of this makes any sense.
While one is free to disbelieve in such a Being that transcends all creatureliness in favor of their own sense of truth and goodness, to put conditions on God's existence forces one to admit that they are just unbelievers playing with words. We're just believing in this God only as far as he suits our judgments or standards which we then turn around and pretend that God has given us.
This approach spotlights that we haven't overcome anthropocentric humanism. We're still seeking to make God in our own image and likeness rather than surrendering ourselves to God without conditions. There is no essential difference between the atheist and theist at this point. They both have the same criteria for their respective beliefs. One has created a god, while the other one rejects the god created.
Theologians will point out that the God they are talking about is logical, humane, good, etc. This may be true, but then our priorities are in our belief in ourselves and our own criteria which informs us that the "God hypothesis" is quite reasonable. That's not monotheism. We can't transcend our homocentrism by giving priority to the epistemological status of such rational or reasonable claims to God's revelation.
If there is a monotheistic God, it cannot be at our service, or the service of our reason. God is not a pragmatic hypothesis.
We need an image or icon of the divine adapted to our means of perception which is why we have an anthropomorphic idea of God.
The God of monotheism stands above all human principles and requirements of the human mind. If we claim that God permits evil, God cannot be good and omnipotent, or the contradiction between free will and predestination; then we have already abandoned monotheism.
God does not descend to the moral round table of logical, philosophical, mathematical, or ethical discussions because he is infinitely beyond all of this. Those who think otherwise are degrading monotheism, and simply using it to justify their own beliefs and judgments. God cannot be used to certify our uncertainties, or a "God of the gaps" to cover our uncertainties and ignorance.
God overrules whatever is repugnant to our reason or ethics. To accept monotheism is to overcome whatever immoral commands the God who is the very ground of our awareness, and moral sense has given us.
There is nothing extraordinary about an Abraham acquiescing to God's command to kill his only son, for God is the one who has given him this sense of moral nausea in the first place. Lest we forget, this is the same God who has already told Abraham to pack his stuff and leave his home with no destination in mind as well as commanding him to slice off the foreskin of his penis. None of this makes any sense.
While one is free to disbelieve in such a Being that transcends all creatureliness in favor of their own sense of truth and goodness, to put conditions on God's existence forces one to admit that they are just unbelievers playing with words. We're just believing in this God only as far as he suits our judgments or standards which we then turn around and pretend that God has given us.
This approach spotlights that we haven't overcome anthropocentric humanism. We're still seeking to make God in our own image and likeness rather than surrendering ourselves to God without conditions. There is no essential difference between the atheist and theist at this point. They both have the same criteria for their respective beliefs. One has created a god, while the other one rejects the god created.
Theologians will point out that the God they are talking about is logical, humane, good, etc. This may be true, but then our priorities are in our belief in ourselves and our own criteria which informs us that the "God hypothesis" is quite reasonable. That's not monotheism. We can't transcend our homocentrism by giving priority to the epistemological status of such rational or reasonable claims to God's revelation.
If there is a monotheistic God, it cannot be at our service, or the service of our reason. God is not a pragmatic hypothesis.