The god problem; an open discussion

As Seva so correctly alluded to in class on Friday, discussion of a religion’s merits would take far greater time than what is generally allotted, so it is here on this blog that I wish to probe the foundations and implications of what we so colloquially refer to as “faith” or “belief.” Prior to beginning our discussion, some housekeeping is in order. When I speak of a “god” I am referring to the deity of the three great monotheistic traditions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; who is characterized as possessing omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence; and who is said to be perfect. In addition, when I refer to “religion” it is concerning any set of claims, structured or not, that depend upon a supernatural entity for their validity. And lastly, I will generally use “faith” and “belief” interchangeably in the dictionary.com, numbers 2 and 3, sense; that is, as “a belief not based on proof” and as a “belief in god or in the doctrines or the teachings of religion.” These definitions are by no means exclusive and I welcome any deviation that may be agreed upon.

There is a seemingly infinite number of angles with which to evaluate the claims made by religious adherents, so I think I’ll just start with where we left off in class on Friday; the bible (or Qur’an) as fable.

The central argument for bible (or Qur’an) validity can be dismissed rather efficiently. It goes something like this: “I know the bible (or Qur’an) is true, because it’s the word of god and god does not lie. How do I know god doesn’t lie? The bible (or Qur’an) says so.” Spelled out the argument looks like this: 1) The bible (or Qur’an) states that god does not lie, 2) The bible (or Qur’an) is god’s word, 3) therefore, the bible (or Qur’an) is true. In this argument lies an unexpressed premise of mass proportions: “god exists.” If we are to further this argument to substantiate the suppressed premise “god exists” we could say 1) the bible (or Qur’an) states that god exists, 2) the bible (or Qur’an) is true because it is god’s word and therefore, 3) god exists. The circularity and frequency of this argument in modern discourse are both greater and far more rampant than we should care to imagine -hopefully they need not be expanded on any further here. Directly put, one’s premises cannot presuppose the conclusion; here it being “god exists.” In fact, this type of unwarranted assumption is so common that it even carries with it the eloquent title of petitio principii, i.e. begging the question.

But what if there are other, more crafty arguments for the existence of a deity that my straw-man hasn’t afforded, thus rendering the bible-(or Qur’an)-as-true argument more plausible? There are, namely the teleological and ontological a priori modes of argumentation; but to what leap of logic should we address our claim to knowledge from there? Pointedly, if religion X makes the same claim to knowledge of Yahweh (Yahweh here for expediency), and through Yahweh, that religion Y and Z do, yet holds incompatible beliefs comparatively, to whose supernatural insight are we to look for correct knowledge? It follows quite readily that even if we were to conquer the intellectual feat of validating the existence of a god, the competing claims to supreme truth would likely go violently unresolved, much like today. From here it is likely that religious persons will claim it to be “faith” they rest upon when making the aforementioned leap of logic towards supernatural knowledge. To this claim I will address at a later time.

There is one other qualification to make to my claim that the bible (or Qur’an) is mere fable. It has been said that the bible (or Qur’an) can be a useful guide to historical events, that is, we can interpret it as a historically accurate document. I dispute that claim. It is practically prudent for us to view biblical (or Qur’an based) accounts of history along the lines of “The Iliad” or “Odyssey,” and even that seems quite generous –no offence to Homer. Frankly, when deciphering what may be historically accurate depictions in the bible (or Qur’an) juxtaposed to obvious cognitive absurdities, it becomes difficult, though not impossible, to separate fact from fiction. Here is my discord: I have no problem understanding that a Jewish man named Jesus, who was from Nazareth, taught an apocalyptic version of Judaism that earned him the ire of the greater Jewish, and subsequently Roman, populations. On the other hand, I do have a problem with the preposterous notions that this same mortal man was born of a virgin (which if he was wouldn’t the Jews have elevated him to messiah position posthaste?), died for my sins (however an effect can precede its cause I know not), was resurrected from the dead (which seems to violate all known laws of physics), and is, if you are Catholic, the father, son, and holy spirit (which are “three Persons…truly distinct from one another…and yet there are not 3 gods, but 1 god –Catholic Encyclopedia [this last one seems to take the cake for intellectual dishonesty]) Likewise, I have no trouble comprehending Muhammad, peace be upon him or not, as a roughshod figure who was expelled to Medina where he subsequently raised an army of credulous followers who then proceeded to build a religious empire around conquering others by the sword. What I do have a problem with is the absolutely, unjustifiably absurd claim that he flew to “heaven” on a winged horse (wherever “heaven” may be).

I think this is a good start for a conversation. Hopefully by dispelling some of the outlandishly fallacious modes of thinking, such as begging the question, we can get to the meat and potatoes of what it is we truly mean when we claim to “believe” in (a) god or accept the bible or Qur’an as inerrant explanations of the way the world actually is.

-note: My capitalization of the “Q” in Qur’an is an error; it, the Qur’an, deserves no more special recognition than the bible. In further posts I will treat them as indistinct. Additionally, I will also address my unwitting, intellectual mistake that led to the capitalization of said “Q” –for primer, it has everything to do with the misplaced notion in our society that a religious belief/text/claim deserves some sort of special respect just because it is religious.