Pro-God Agnostics versus Anti-God Agnostics

Agnostics are at war with atheists — and properly so, because, like Shiites and Sunnis, or Catholics and Protestants, or Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhists, or Orthodox and Reform Jews, the ones closest to you who tack differently on a point that implicates Authenticity, are reallyno, seriously, really — extremely annoying.

Thus did I have the great misfortune recently to open up another deep fissure in human relationships.  Alas, this is the new rumbling Great War between Pro-God Agnostics and Anti-God Agnostics.

I am unabashedly pro-God.  But not in the sense of having experienced a personal God.  More in the sense of being God’s lawyer.  A very dear friend is rather strongly anti-God, but not in the sense of disproving God, much less having experienced God’s wrath or disapproval.  More in the sense of finding God disagreeable, even bizarrely irrational.

You can imagine the fireworks. The shouting, oy.

So God creates a universe that takes billions of years to expand and produce anything of interest, my friend rants, never mind humans, and this is divinely inspired how?

This is a young God, I say, playing pinball.  You can think pinball is pretty cool for a long time, particularly when you don’t have computer games.  (I know whereof I speak.)  And, okay, maybe not so interesting to you, but I can see how young God would have thought the bing-bing-bing of the billions of years after the Big Bang was cool.  The light show, the explosions, the superhot and supercold, the proliferation of particles and possibilities.

Okay, he says, given everything God has expected of humans, what took him so long to create them?

Good question, I concede.  But who says he didn’t?  Maybe there are humans or humanoids or possibly Klingons or ideally Vulcans out there that God created long before us.  (And, not incidentally, they haven’t attacked us yet.  Thank God.)

But let’s say we’re the only sentient game in town.  The DNA molecule — complex, self-replicating combinations of atoms — was a paradigm shift for God.  Young God could have savored extremely cool explosions and fissions and fusions for a long time before the massive complexity of the DNA molecule would have occurred to him.  Human mythologies put human beings at the end of creation for a reason.  And it’s not just self-aggrandizement.

Yes, he concedes (because he had said it in an entirely unrelated thread of our conversation, and couldn’t now deny it), we’re complex.  But, he says, God created that complexity. 

But, I interject a bit rudely, we know from The Fifth Element there can be a superior being with tremendously more complex DNA.  Just saying.

Right, he says, but I’m talking about our level of complexity.  And God expects that complexity to do obeisance to him, to bow, to worship.  What truly supreme being really expects obeisance and bowing and worshipping?  Particularly from complexity.  And by the way, he opted not to give us perfect or complete — or even much — knowledge.  But by god, we better worship him anyway.  Or bad things will happen to us.  Depending on the sect, anything between truly horrific and eternally boring things will happen to us.  Sorry.  Design defect.

And oh yes, God created that complexity and incomplete knowledge and terrible consequences for failing to worship him, knowing everything that would happen, and therefore deliberately condemning many people to terrible consequences — people he created in order to condemn them to terrible consequences.  Not interested.

Okay, slow down, I say.  Not that there’s not a devastating kernel of truth to what you’re saying.  But you’re talking about Baal, or maybe Apollo, but not God.

The whole omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent thing, not sure that’s God.  If you really think about “omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent,” these don’t add up to a personal God, or a God to whom massively imperfect human beings could ever relate — or who could ever relate to human beings.  If I’m omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, if I know everything, have every power conceivable, and am everywhere, I’m probably depressed, overextended, and very bored.  Just think for a moment what it would mean to know everything, and to know you knew everything.  The inability to forget anything — well, that’s a kind of limitation on divinity itself, isn’t it?  Couldn’t divinity opt to forget?  And couldn’t divinity forego certain of its powers or opt to be less than everywhere?

So, he says, your God is more like Superman or Spiderman or Batman?  He has superpowers, but not every power?

Maybe so maybe no.  And I know you’re trying to trivialize God by comparison to comic book heroes.  But the enormous popularity of these comic book heroes is not entirely irrelevant to the popularity of God…

Exactly, he says, God is the ultimate superhero, addressing our longing for something that has power over the inexplicable…

Let me finish, I say.  (Granted, testy — but this is what happens in internecine inter-non-faith disputes.)

Yes, God explains certain things otherwise inexplicable — but granting as you do the existence of the inexplicable, God fills the vacuum.  On some level, God is a placeholder where human perception experiences fear of the unknown and human imagination supplies an answer — and who knows what the ultimate content of God may be?  Now re-frame that notion: we cannot ultimately know God, but we can surmise that God exists in what will never otherwise be fully explained.

Oh come on, he says, that’s shorthand for God equals the historical extent of human ignorance.  Cavemen who didn’t understand sunlight or rain or lightning attributed them to God — ergo God?

No, God shrinks a bit with every human discovery, but never disappears and never will disappear.  You yourself acknowledged the inexplicable.  The very best minds on the planet for decades have been dedicated to a Theory of Everything, or in other circles to an explanation of consciousness, or elsewhere to what gave rise to something from nothing.  God still dwells in these places.  Indeed, he becomes more fascinating.

But, he presses aptly, what does this God do?  This “placeholder” sounds like a surrogate for what we haven’t explained, not a personal God, or any meaningful God at all.

Yes, that is difficult, but here we must posit a distinction between God and God’s emissaries.  It makes abundant sense to me that much of human mythology is driven by contact with God’s emissaries.  Let us say, for example, that God, or certain of God’s emissaries, exist in a fifth or higher dimension, which our minds — and the minds of ancients — could not possibly comprehend.  It would be like positing a sentient being in the second dimension, on a flat plane without depth, and how that sentient being could not possibly comprehend a third dimension — and how the intervention of a third-dimensional being, like a human, into that sentient being’s two-dimensional world would seem miraculous and amazing — indeed, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Well you must admit that this extra-dimensional being’s intervention solves the problems attributed to both God’s apparent violation of physics and God’s quirkiness.

If, I continue (with evangelical promotion of possible-God), God or God’s emissaries intervene from an extra dimension, then a swath of stories — the full range of human mythology, grounded in actual interactive experience — becomes plausible.

But…

Moreover, I continue a bit more loudly (okay, now I’m just being obnoxious, but evangelizing possible-God compels no less), when these stories become plausible — each of them based upon human beings’ actual experience with God or God’s emissaries, then their sometimes bizarre eschatologies are less bizarre.  All of those absurd hellish consequences you deride dissolve into a separate human impulse to assign accountability to human conduct — human conduct measured with reference to what God has told us to do and not to do.  I don’t think God described ultimate consequences — but I think human beings felt a need to do so.  So condemnation to hellfire is one story about what happens when you fail to subscribe to the God-narrative or fail to do what God instructed.

So, you’re not willing to support the existence of God without extra dimensions?

Yes, I’m willing to support God without extra dimensions, but I’m not willing to deny the intriguing possibility of extra dimensions.

Then what would God in three-dimensional space and time look like?  After all, all of our stories of God on our planet are located in three-dimensional space and time.

Hmmm…  well, maybe some of our three-dimensional space and time stories are based upon our inability to comprehend extra dimensions, and maybe the failure to sufficiently imagine extra dimensions explains anti-God agnosticism and atheism.  But, okay, a three-dimensional God would likely be a superhuman.  A three-dimensional God would be, for example, a visitor from a super-civilization in outer space.  All of our mythologies describe profoundly human Gods.  The actual stories are never about truly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent beings.  The actual stories are never about some luminous ultimate being, but about beings with extra powers who speak and negotiate and get angry and sometimes have sex and have opinions and fight and change their minds.  Only as monotheism became a more solidified dogma do you see the emergence of the concept of an ultimate transcendent all-powerful and all-knowing God.  But I don’t think the concept ever really transplanted the reality of actual contact with divinity.  That’s why the stories persist, even when they don’t square with monotheistic dogma.

Where there are ancient traditions of oneness with God, and God is a viable ultimate (as in Hinduism), the God with which one achieves oneness is not a personal God — except as part of a later story where the narrative human-God is identified with the ultimate God to promote some part of the preferred story.

Even granting all of your bizarreness, he says, it doesn’t seem to yield a personal God.  Obviously, you don’t have a personal relation with God.

No, not yet, and possibly not ever.  And this is something both irritating and embarrassing to me about God and me.

Advertisements

4 Responses to Pro-God Agnostics versus Anti-God Agnostics

  1. tl says:

    wow – excellent, excellent points. It’s difficult to discuss God very well without a better definition of the Devil, or vice versa, not sure which. Something, anything to compare God to would suffice. I don’t find it a contradiction for us to be given a freedom of choice, and still be given a penalty for making the wrong one. Here again, heaven wouldn’t be that great if there wasn’t a hell. An interesting exercise would be to create a world from scratch and solve all the problems…or start with no problems and work backwards.

  2. Derek Macdowell says:

    Such an interesting discussion!

    I have always found the concept of Aquinas’ “first mover” to be the best and simplest explanation of my current understanding of God. For everything that moves, there is a mover, ergo for everything that exists a creative force – ergo a God of some kind.

    God as concept makes perfect sense. In the attempt to conceptualize this force as both unknowable and desirous of a personal relationship, however, that one runs into issues. That extra dimensional being analogy is a very, very good one, and one that I have not heard before.

  3. LaNese says:

    All well conceived — cerebral. The missing link. . . God is spirit. This topic should be addressed in spiritual/emotional terminology, or it does not make sense. . . . All relationships are spiritual – they cannot be conducted cerebrally.

    The salient (I think) point made here was dimensionality. Native Americans used dance (Ghost Dance) to cross that boundary. Some used hemp/marijiuana, etc. Man still uses drugs/alcohol to cross into the doorway of other dimensions. I call this the liminal. I wrote some interesting papers on this subject in Anthropology.

    The basic yearning of man IS for God, is for the love of God. There is the thing we seek eternally.

    The three O’s do not factor in when One loves. If God is all things (which His Creation/Chaos would tend to suggest), how can we understand or explain anymore than Job could? Job only knew that he was not enough to question his Creator, because his Creator made the morning and everything else.

    Science has continued to test Biblical text and continues to find it factual. Interesting. Man theories against recorded history.

    I am unabashedly pro-God
    I am also open to another one of our age-old bouts. Just don’t jump down the stairs at your old age 😉

  4. Pingback: On God « The Prince and The Little Prince

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: