Man Creates God

Posted on by Vincent

This post was lately called “God begins with a Word”. It’is now restored to its original title, above.

I was brought up to treat God with respect, regardless of what I might think personally. In England there was and possibly still is a law against blasphemy, which demonstrates a legal as well as moral imperative not to attack the thing that someone else holds most dear, even with words. To me it is self-evident that books with titles such as The God Delusion and God is Not Great put themselves in the wrong, regardless of any arguments they put forward, because of their authors’ disrespect. Perhaps they would ask that I respect their reasoning. I would grant them that. I respect their reasoning no more and no less than everyone else’s; but I don’t have to be convinced by it. And I can question the Bible’s claims to truth, without a tinge of scorn.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) And of course such claims, relentlessly repeated, have got to us. We don’t question the axiom that God existed before we came along, because it appears self-evident. Even an atheist would accept that a God, if he existed, must be there from the beginning, before man came along.

But I hope to show you that it cannot be so. Man must precede God, for God is a word without which we could not be having this discussion. (Yes, it is a discussion. As I write, I’m in lively debate with myself. You are invited to join in.) Words are part of language. Words signify something so that communication can take place. So before there can be the concept of God, there have to be human beings, who have learned how to share their observations by means of language. If we can’t see it, that’s only because we have been so thoroughly conditioned to think of God as pre-existing.

“Oh, but this is absurd!” I hear you say. “ If there is a God at all, he (she, whatever) is the Creator who made us in his image. Therefore he came first.” Yes, the Bible says that, but the God that people depend on is the God whose existence is confirmed by their experience. There may be a God who made us, but this is unknowable. Whereof we do not know, thereof we cannot speak. In some areas, we have no alternative but to be agnostic*.

In short, God, “the mighty power in whom we trust”, must be based on some present reality. It’s the same for any other concept. For a word like “dog” to exist, someone must know what a dog is, and be able to show someone else, otherwise the word is just an empty sound. It has always surprised me how easily a child learns to identify and name a dog, by pointing, looking at the mother’s lips, repeating the word. (How can the child generalize amongst examples of such different colours, shapes and sizes, recognizing them all as members of dogkind? Plato might have explained that in the invisible Heaven of Forms, the ultimate prototype dog wags its archetypal tail and barks its paradigmatic bark.)

If you want to teach a child about the Judaeo-Christian God, it’s not as though you can point to God in the street, as you can with a dog. It wouldn’t help if you waved your arms about and said “All this is God”, meaning the world, the universe, everything. For these are difficult concepts too, and the child might think that God is something to do with arm-waving. I remember driving with my four-year-old son on a foggy day, and saying, “Look! Fog!” He asked where. I pointed out the window. He said, “I can’t see anything.” I said, “Right! That’s what fog is.” “No,” he replied. “I can’t see anything at all, Dad.” So perhaps God is like fog, but even less visible to the eye.

But what we want to know is, how was God first discovered (or invented) by adults? In the Bible, it’s straightforward enough. God creates Adam and Eve and immediately talks to them:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply.

As I proposed in my last, this portrayal of God is a literary device, like the whole Garden of Eden story. For the sake of the tale, Adam and Eve are created fully-grown and (presumably) complete with navels, to which no umbilical cord has ever been attached. They are able to understand Hebrew and speak it. But we are not to condemn these literary devices as falsehoods. Every true story, or every fiction embodying an important truth, takes liberties with reality. We have no difficulty with this, except when we are trying to destroy our opponent’s credibility with rigorous logic.

So, setting the Biblical myths to one side, how did those tribes really discover and name something as God, or whatever word they used in Hebrew? I propose that it was not completely unlike naming a dog. Someone has an experience, through some combination of senses + emotion + intellect, and tries to tell someone else about it. This is where naming first occurs. It is also clear that for language to exist, there must be at least two persons. Person A feels the need to isolate something out of the totality of changing impressions that make up conscious life, by giving it a name. Only by doing this (or failing this, by pointing) can he identify it as the topic of communication. Once, on the motorway, I said to my small son, “Look, fog!” “I can’t see anything”. He soon grasps it: another way to describe

Since the Judaeo-Christian God cannot be represented as a graven image, pointing won’t work. Naming and description is necessary. How did the Children of Israel know about God, before the Old Testament was written? There must have been a dialogue. Person A says to person B, “Listen to what I am saying. This is God!”, in the same way that a mother says “Look, dog!” to her toddler, or I once said “Look, fog!” to my son. There was not just one dialogue, but myriads of them, countless millions, because the knowing of God—“fear of” or “love of”— happens across the globe and over the millennia. I can’t know what’s said in these verbal exchanges, all the variety of meanings. All the same I suggest it is possible to distil the essence.

Person A is the “knower”; person B is the “believer”, who believes because he hasn’t (yet) had the experience which has inspired the knower. Still, he accepts it. Every form of teaching has to be taken on trust initially. There has to be an experience somewhere, that is to say a combination, as I said before, of senses + emotion + intellect, in some proportion. Or—and this predominates in the Old Testament—the experience manifests as a voice, which must have come from somewhere, therefore from God. Or a prayer—of supplication or thanksgiving. Or even an absence, in the spot where a presence was sensed before.

It is possible of course for a so-called “knower” (or teacher) to speak falsely, of an experience which he doesn’t have, and for the believer (or student) to believe it nevertheless. And then it is possible for the speaker, that is, person A, to start believing it later, because person B has started to believe it. And we must grant that belief itself is an experience—if only of imagination! It is part of the human repertoire to imagine something before it has any anchoring in senses, emotion or intellect.

Imagination is a double-edged sword. We may use it to cut through ignorance and absorb learning as a child does—but we might get cut ourselves, and be defrauded by fantasy. Imagination is a kind of experience, not because any philosopher (Hume, perhaps) says it is so; but because we can each observe that this is the way we are made. We are capable of creating something out of nothing. You could fake two love letters, one from “him to her”, one from “her to him”. In Shakespeare’s comedies they end up falling in love with one another, even if one is a girl disguised as a boy. (In Shakespeare’s day, all the female parts were boys disguised as girls, but anyway we delight in the illusion of seeing what is not.)

So we are perfectly capable of being deluded about God. But this is the worst-case scenario, and doesn’t justify the disrespect implicit in The God Delusion and God is Not Great. God is the treasure of millions and you can’t argue that away with logic. By “treasure” I mean the most valuable thing they possess, the thing they hold sacred†. The less they possess materially, the more they are likely to treasure God. I don’t think anyone should have the disrespect to call them deluded. They should be given the benefit of the doubt. If you must, you can call it technically a delusion, because faith in God has no scientific basis. By the same token, you can call the rainbow a delusion, until the day a scientist comes along and gives his blessing, saying, “It’s all right, there actually is a rainbow, because Mr Isaac Newton has just written a treatise called Opticks which explains how refracted white light splits into a spectrum.”

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

But which of us is in no danger of foolishness? The cleverer we are, the closer to foolishness.

* Definition of “agnostic”, from the Oxford English Dictionary:

One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

[“Suggested by Prof. Huxley at a party held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, at Mr. James Knowles’s house on Clapham Common, one evening in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St. Paul’s mention of the altar to ‘the Unknown God.’” R. H. Hutton in letter 13 Mar. 1881.]

† See “The Sacred“

100 thoughts on “Man Creates God”

  1. Vincent,

    One thing I think you are still only coming to appreciate is that everyone in America knows the truth about virtually everything and anyone who disagrees with an American, even another American, is wrong by virtue of his disagreement.

    To say: “I don't know,” or “I am not sure,” is an embarrassment. Hence the American has absolutely certainty that is construction of God is the real one and that his best guess of all political issues is the one among many that is not foolish.

    Americans cannot imagine how the other guy's thoughts are so absurd, and he quibbles and quarrels he is just trying to fix the other guy, who is most obviously broken.

    Politics and religion are the same thing. They are both the sources of rules by which the American must live.

    I hope I can legitimately claim myself as the exception to all of this, as I rarely admit to knowing anything. There are few other exceptions living here also, mostly imported. They are usually regarded as stupid.

    Like

  2. Vincent In all my comments I really did not address the main point of your post – Yes ofcourse the word God came after man and his language just as the words tree, universe etc. came afterwards for pre-existing things.

    Like

  3. Thanks, Ashok. I’m glad of your agreement to this point I was trying to make.

    But when you imply that something pre-exists, and then the word comes along later to name what pre-existed, we have to be careful. I grant you that the baby is just as real before and after the moment it is given a name. The tree was a tree even though it existed a million years before the first human capable of language.

    But there are words which don’t correspond to any identifiable “thing”, because they are words which correspond to ideas. “Universe” is an idea. Today we have one set of ideas about it, but a thousand years ago people had very different ideas. We don’t know how well or badly our ideas of universe correspond to the reality, because they are largely speculation.

    This is even more true of God, which is our name for a way of looking at our reality. We may talk of a God who pre-existed, but we have no knowledge of it or Him whatever. We only have our ideas, our way of looking, our faith or our scepticism.

    I am not going to talk of the unknowable, because, of course, I cannot claim to know it.

    Like

  4. Davo I’ve been reading Mark Twain’s irreverent account of the Flood, and can confirm that kangaroos, possums and wombats did not get on the Ark at all.

    “If he had known all the requirements in the beginning, he would have been aware that what was needed was a fleet of Arks. But he did not know how many kinds of creatures there are, neither did his Chief. So he had no kangaroo, and no ’possum … they having wandered to a side of this world he had never seen and with whose affairs he was not acquainted. … They only escaped by an accident. There was not water enough to go around. Only enough was provided to flood one small corner of the globe – the rest of the globe was not then known, and was supposed to be nonexistent.”

    But fear not, Australia! God surfs the Web, and knows about your iniquties. It’s a bit late but he so loves the world that he’s sending you those floods now.

    Like

  6. I understand your point Vincent. After man and his language came along he gave a name to some things that pre=existed and also created new concepts and gave a name to that too. As regards God this line of argument will not lead us to discover which of the two it was and some other method has to be found as mentioned in my most recent post on atheism.

    Like

  7. Um, irreverant perhaps – but one will have noticed that very few kangaroos,wombats .. etc, were lost in the Qld/NSW floods .. only many thousands of sheep, cattle ..”commercial” funding .. and human folly.

    Like

  8. Very well said Davo.

    It is amazing how much of Nature man destroys in his quest for things he feels he must have. It is not surprising if Nature is compelled to strike back from time to time.

    I had some such concerns when I wrote my most recent post – Man, environment and self, in my blog at someitemshave.blogspot.com if you care to check out.

    Like

  11. Wow. There's been quite a discussion here. I'll have to go back and read it all.

    Sorry it's taken me a while to get back here.

    I read The God Delusion. I think it's arguments were rather weak, actually. If I remember correctly, there were basically two main points. 1.) Arguing that we can't prove God doesn't exist isn't a reason to believe that he does. He used the example of a tea cup floating in the asteroid field between Earth and Mars. We can't prove there isn't one there, but that's no reason to think there is. 2.) Trying to account for the complexity of the universe by saying that that it must have been designed by a creator only escalates the problem, because God is even more complex so it just raises the same issue all over again.

    The problem with both of these arguments, as I see it, is that although they knock down some of the arguments people might make for the existence of God, they really don't address the issue of God's existence itself. But, I guess he's saying the burden of proof is on the believers. I can see that.

    I agree with what you're saying about respecting people's beliefs, but I don't think that people should dance around their own opinions either. If Dawkins is an atheist, I don't think he should feel that he needs to be apologetic or mince words about it. He should be polite, of course, just as he should in any case of human interaction. I've known plenty of religious people that don't pull any punches when it comes to confronting people that disagree with them. They would be quite comfortable telling Dawkins all about how he's going to burn in Hell for all of eternity. Is that any more respectful? Also, I'm sure you know how we Americans feel about our freedom of speech, so I'm sure I don't need to tell you how I feel about a law against blasphemy.

    Anyway, I know this barely scratches the surface of your post. There's a lot more to chew over here, and if what I'm saying has already been beaten to death in the 60+ comments, then I apologize for being redundant.

    Like

  12. Skimming through the comments, I get the sense that your friend John Myste doesn't care too much for Americans. All I can say is that we're not all crass, pig-headed yokels over here, although far more than enough of us are, so I really can't blame him for thinking that. However, coming as he does from an infinitely more enlightened culture, I'm sure he can appreciate how ludicrous it is to make broad generalizations about a person's personality based solely on geography.

    Like

  13. Mr. White

    I was not judging all Americans thus. I was indicating what one can often expect to find when visiting American blogs. I base this merely on anecdotal evidence and do not intend to suggest that it applies to all Americans. If you visit a whole bunch of political or philosophical blogs, you will find more of this than you would expect. That is observation, not generalization. You find all kinds of people in America.

    I made the comment in partial jest. However, there is hint of sincerity also. People typically joke and exaggerate about ideas they find comically absurd, or merely comical. Unfortunately, I find this merely comical. I do not claim that my country is exempt from the same phenomenon. Partially because I know the phenomenon is not specific to a nation or a people. You find it everywhere; but mostly out of loyalty. Where I come from, this phenomenon is excessive, but not pervasive.

    I live in Texas, sir.

    Like

  14. Ah, I see. I think the “y” in your name threw me. I'm sure by my comment, it sounded like I was more offended than I was. Such is the nature of the internet. And yes, I'm certainly aware of how belligerent people can be around here. Being from Texas, I'm sure your even more aware of it, since we all know what people from Texas are like.

    I'm kidding, of course.

    Like

  15. Mr. White,

    You did not sound offended, but more satirical. I found the subtle implications to be adorably American.

    The fault is mine, as I often mis-communicate or worse, communicate accurately and foolishly. I believe you are the second patron of this blog to recognize me for less than I would choose; Davo being the first, who indicted me in his native tongue.

    I was not offended by you, sir. And as for Davo, I can't stop laughing every time I think I about it. Never have I been denounced in such an entertaining way.

    If you are listening, Davo, I am sorry you and I were not to become friends, as you are a very charismatic and amusing fellow.

    Like

  17. Ashok – yes, will reply in due course!

    John – Davo & I are fellow-Australians. I agree with your final judgement, and I think you could be friends. I feel like putting in a word on your behalf to him. It was amusing that you were not recognised by Bryan as being American. You don’t have knighthoods and peerages over there, but to my mind, “unamerican” would a high accolade, equivalent to our Order of Merit. (sorry, America! please don’t rend or render me in some extraordinary fashion. It would be cruel and unusual.)
    Bryan – I shall have to write another post, clearly saying what I mean, this time. Your clarity teaches me to be clear too.

    Like

  19. Good Guide makes appreciation the better choice than being critical.
    1st Commandment- “I” AM The Lord Thy God, You shall have no other god before “ME”! Know “I”self! Responsibility can't be passed off on any concept without trauma, and that's why the apple represents blame, which may be why gods are needed patho-logically.

    Like

  20. John, curb your craving! I’m sorry to have whetted your appetite for another instalment. I find myself regretting the post, regretting any promises made, shocked by the number of comments, a record on this blog.

    Bored with God? No, but as with sex, there is a big difference between talking and doing.

    Like

  23. Vincent,

    Some bloggers wish to express themselves on certain issues, but get overwhelmed by the commitment to respond to others that it sometimes implies.

    You may post on such issues and “close comments,” meaning set the post as one on which viewers cannot comment.

    Do not allow us to squelch your enthusiasm.

    Like

  24. Davo, you’re right. I have no personal anecdotes at present, would have to dig into my disreputable past.

    John, I would never have comments closed, and I don’t really regret anything. But you say “Some bloggers wish to express themselves on certain issues”. Indeed. I never meant to be one of them! There are plenty of others to express themselves on issues. I prefer non-issues, that is to express my experience, without pressing the reader’s “issue” button. Am more interested in some kind of poetic resonance being achieved.

    Like

  26. Fortunately, the former comment failed to post. Unfortunately, I posted a correction for the prior comment, which looks funny now.

    Here is the missing comment…

    Vincent,

    Alas, this may lead to an unfortunate contraction, as the things with the most resonance-potential are often those that are most evocative.

    I have never had a true appreciation of poetry. I would say I dislike 99.9 percent of it. However, I like the other .1 percent and I probably find a tenth of that to be some of my favorite writing.

    Some poetry is very “issue oriented,” Like Kenneth Patchen’s “Breathe on the Living,” which I take to be an indictment of God’s use of mercy and the fact that he established heaven as place in the afterlife; or like Shelly’s Ozymandias, which shows the arrogance of regarding temporary realities as truth.

    Some poetry provides definition to abstract concepts that one almost cannot express with rhetoric. An example would be Longfellow’s “The Tide Rises,” which could have many interpretations, but I religiously believe his point was to express the incomprehensibility of the fact that a man’s value on earth is mostly an illusion. The idea that the mechanics of the world are unchanged by our departure, feels impossible, as from our view, when we die, the world has ended. Our death is not a devastating event; it is not so much a dramatic event; it is a non event. (http://www.bartleby.com/248/208.html).

    Then there are poems that Oscar Wilde and others called “impressions.” In his “Les Silhouette,” he did not want to impart wisdom, nor did he want to argue a position. He wanted to lift you from your seat and transport you into another world in just a few lines. And that is what he did. You do not know why you are there or what you are doing. All you know is that you are there. You feel what he felt and see what he saw. Being there is the whole point. (http://www.bartleby.com/143/34.html). Another example of an impression is Archibald MacLeish’s “The End of the World” (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-end-of-the-world/).

    A fourth kind of poetry would be a combination of impression, philosophy and irony, like “Intimations of Mortality” by Louis MacNeice, in which he compares a child falling asleep with death.

    I equate blogging to poetry. These are poetic styles I like, when they are well done. I like them because they are profound, either because they arouse my analytical mind or because they arouse my spirit (whatever that is). In all cases they cause my mind to work in a way it was not working before, and that is what I seek.

    Your words have this effect. It does not matter to me if they are “addressing” some issue or if they are intended to resonate, as in a poem that is only an impression would, since the effect is the same. In your writing and in the writings of others, I am not seeking a tutorial in life. I merely wish my mind to be worked in a way it was not before. I am looking for intellectual or spiritual arousal.

    I think you feel that if a thought becomes an issue, it is somehow sensationalistic, base or crude. If so, then I must disagree. All of these art forms are needed, as they all activate one’s intellect in different ways. To limit one’s expression only to those things that resonate without provoking ,is to relegate a large section of the mind to mediocrity. This section of the mind may neighbor another section that is prone to fisticuffs, which is not a gentlemen’s way. However, the part of the mind that thinks about things that could become “issues” is as much a gentleman as the purely impressionistic portion, and we should not deny him is floor or hold him accountable for the baser tendencies of the human psyche. That would be guilt by association, would it not?

    Though I asked a question, it was rhetorical. No response to this comment is necessary.

    Like

  27. I laughed when you said Vincint. I thought it might be a typo or it might be a sneering form of address, which was funny because I couldn't imagine you doing that.

    I received an email copy of your uncorrected and corrected comment, but neither of them have actually appeared! Yet. Shall I copy them and publish here, if you don't have a copy?

    Like

  35. the word is “ME” I alone am responsible for what god can be (or not) so the apple represents where blame was started (for knowledge of others suggesting things). Good & Guide also suggest words that “god” sprouted from

    Like

Leave a comment