In your "The Irrationality of Theism" (which I am delighted I found and am equally delighted to tell you I am now linking to), you parenthetically make the statement... "As was stated earlier, though, a natural God is a trivial one."
May I suggest that while on the surface your comment is quite accurate, at a deeper level of thought you are mistaking triviality with plainness. Not only a common mistake, but indeed the single biggest reason why the existence of a natural God tends to not be observerable by most of even the most rational people.
DC, if you are curious, see http://theometry.org for a purposely non-linear introduction to that natural God. Even better, if you are up to wrestling with ideas which at times are so subtle they at first appear too slippery to grasp, don't be surprised if despite Theometry.org's non-linearities -- and occasional raunchiness, there may be a thesis or two in there for you even if only as a source of ideas for you to academically beat the shit out of. :-)
Max pax, YL
Greetings; it's rarely the case these days that I receive commentary dealing with the antiquated drafts I posted, and as such, I appreciate the feedback. I've read your website, as well as some of the deeper-linked articles, but I'm still somewhat puzzled by your depiction of God; it seems to me to be a collection of quotes, stories, and musings, none of which obviously conspire to form a coherent picture of a natural God. Nevertheless, I'll take a stab at formulating a response to your suggestion that I've mistaken triviality with plainness, as whether a natural God is indeed a trivial God is an incredibly important matter to me.
Although I must admit that the paper you've linked to no longer describes my current, overarching position with respect to theology and atheism (I wrote it when I was a sophomore, and had just started studying philosophy, you see), I believe the comment in question still stands, and that--contrary to what you've stated about my "confusing utter plainness" with triviality on your website--a natural god or God is indeed a trivial one, and that I was not mistaken to claim this. The reason for this is that the long-standing dispute between theists and atheists has always at root been a debate over whether anyone should believe in the existence of a supernatural being. The notion of a natural God, that is, would have very little role to play in the foundations of the larger monotheistic religions, which consume approximately one-half of the world's population. It was primarily in this respect that I urged that the notion of a natural God is a trivial one; such events as the Inquistion, the Christianization of 'uncivilized people', the 9/11 attacks, etc. would never have occurred if people equated God with something such as nature, Emerson's Oversoul, etc. Belief in a natural God is a shift towards humanism, which drives God from the picture. I think the fact that so many fundamentalist groups lament that so many people live godless, materialist lives these days only reaffirms this point.
Moreover, if we grant that God--whatever God happens to be--is subject to natural law or is somehow equivalent to natural law (i.e., is any sense natural), then we've tacitly subscribed to atheism; for in what sense is God actually God unless he fulfills a position that only He can? Similarly, we should eschew the notion that God has been manifested in mathematics, logic, nature, etc., as this notion has no predictory power.
From what I've gathered from your purported introduction to a natural God, God is a "the law of everything," or some sort of underlying principle governing all existence, whether it be within or external to a person. If this or something incredibily similar to this view is the case, then I'm under the impression that you've described a view of God akin to Paul Tillich's, a well-known Protestant theologian. (Tillich, for example, describes God as "being-itself.") If this depiction is accurate, then your revelation is not quite so profound; there's very little said about God these days that was not uttered at some time or another.
In cases such as these, though, my response is this: the theist, in more-or-less defining God into existence, has been forced to adopt a position that very little, if anything, can be said about. The upshot of this is that the theist, if he is sharp, will simply remain silent on the issue of God's existence. I do not see, though, that this is a satisfactory position for one to take up.
I hate to rush some of these points, and I realize I probably sound a bit cocky in doing so, but I invite you to read the first few chapters of George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God for a protracted analysis of why the issue of God really boils down to a natural/supernatural debate. I don't really agree with much of the rest of Smith's book--namely because he endorses Objectivist epistemology, which ought to make any serious philosopher cringe--but I wholeheartedly agree with his insistence that, in order for meaningful--to reject Quine for a moment and assume the notion of meaning--discourse about God to take place, the word 'God' must denote a supernatural being.
Anyway, that's my take on the matter. If I've completely misunderstood or maligned your viewpoint, of course, please tell me, as well as provide another depiction of the God in question, so that I can discuss the issue further with you. From what I've read, though, I suspect that I'll levy similar objections to such a depiction.
Again, I'm always delighted to receive commentary from you and other netizens. I appreciate the thought, as well as encourage you to dwell on the preceding comments.
Peaces,
DC Tedrow
I just thought it'd be interesting to share this discussion, I suppose. I'll post more as this unfolds.
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.
Be first to comment this article
