Thoughts: The Ebb and Flow

Religion, Gods as Contingency?

This article attempts to describe religion as contingency because of the multitude of belief systems and “gods” that are created by man.

I tend to agree that our individual (and even institutional) beliefs are as much influenced by culturally accepted norms as they are by any sort of revelation.  However, I think that the anthropomorphization of gods speaks more to the inexplicable spiritual nature to many human experiences that do not suffice to be explained by reason or empirical observation so we instead create a god in our own image.

Rather than being contingency, perhaps widespread anthropomorphism within religion instead reflects a larger acknowledgement of the mysticism within various human experiences.  Perhaps this will allow us to realize where we all encounter unknowns, rather than merely carte blanche rejecting a variety of human religious/spiritual experiences.

I read Plato’s Euthyphro earlier today and I can’t get the ideas out of my mind… “is something pious because it is loved by the gods, or is something loved by the gods because it is pious?”

Taking this question that was asked by Socrates and applying it to a modern theistic understanding of God is not too troublesome, because he later qualifies that he is talking about “what is loved by all the gods is pious, and what is hated by all the gods impious” thus making all of the gods (pantheism) into single-mindedness (theistic implications).

So I thought about it, and I agree with Socrates.  Something is loved and deemed moral by God because it is pious. 

(But Ryan, this removes the moral from God! You can’t accept that!)

Actually, I can.  And I almost have to.  Saying that what is pious is so because it is loved by God removes all moral distinctions.  For whatever God proclaims “pious” is pious, regardless of whether it is right or not.  Thus, we essentially become theistic nihilists, not believing in any true moral standard other than what God commands.

(But Ryan, this isn’t nihilistic, because obviously God is a loving God and He is the definition of what is good!)

Let’s deconstruct that.  First, if you accept that what is pious is so because it is loved by God, than saying that God is a loving God makes no sense.  How can He be “loving” when the quality of “love” is in no way outside of Him? Thus saying that God is loving is saying nonsense.  It is like me saying, “I am me.”

If God is the definition of what is good, we are right back where we started, with a nihilistic dilemma. What do we do?

Well, I can follow Kierkegaard and say that my relationship with God inextricably leads me to moral belief, and not just that, but a “teleological suspension of the ethical.”  Thus, you reject ethical boundaries found in the world, or even in Scripture, to follow the direct command of God a la Abraham sacrificing Isaac.

Another option is to trust in the goodness of God, regardless of the moral and logical dilemmas this causes.  I, personally, am not willing to suspend thought, logic, and my intuitive sense of justice to simply accept what I am told.

So I am going to take the option that delineates an ethic that is beyond God, that God adheres to.  This makes my God neither omnipotent, nor omniscient in some ways, but it makes Him both logically and morally consistent.

Final Objection: (But Ryan, God’s ways are so far above our ways, who are we to question His actions?)

I do not accept skepticism as an answer, only as a cop out.  If we are made in the image of God and given the ability to know God, then we can indeed know what He is like.  If there is no way to know Him, we are stuck with an agnostic reality that few Bible-believing Christians are willing to accept (although I could be convinced, towards a deist position).

Sorry for such a long post, but these thoughts will help form my paper on Euthyphro, and any criticism/commentary on these thoughts is more than welcome!

What if there is no heaven or hell?  What if there is no afterlife?  What if all we have is… now?

New blog post, jumping on the Rob Bell commentary bandwagon, but not quite.  Instead, casting doubt on the way we perceive the afterlife.

Recently, I have noticed that my faith is dictated by the words and opinions of others.  

Let me rephrase that: My level of belief is affected by other people.  When I see a Christian talk about God orchestrating suffering in the world, when I see a Christian talk about the poor in derogatory terms, when I see a Christian emphasize traditional morality over love, I become upset, angry, and doubtful.

Doubtful of my own belief, doubtful of my faith.  Doubtful about the reality or credibility of Christianity. I begin to become upset at the people, and therefore let it alter my own belief.  I become upset at the institution, at the flawed individuals, and at the opinions that become attached to Christianity.

I do not become upset at the word’s of Christ.  I do not become upset at his miracles and his works.  I do not become upset at the Christians who lay down their life overseas to minister and serve others.  I become angry, infuriated, at the comfortable (little c) christians I see all over the place.  And it makes me not want to believe.

In many ways I identify with Gandhi:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

I need to realize that, instead of measuring my faith by the individuals of the Church, I must measure it by the person of Christ.  My faith is a subjective pursuit, something I determine, something I choose.  I need to realize that my faith is my own, and those who spout these opinions are not a part of my belief, but a part of a strange manifestation of it.

In many ways I am a Kierkegaardian Christian, especially in the manner that:

For Kierkegaard Christian faith is not a matter of regurgitating church dogma. It is a matter of individual subjective passion, which cannot be mediated by the clergy or by human artefacts.

I have to recognize that faith is not a matter of following the opinions of others, but of finding my own faith through “subjective passion.”  Only then can I have a faith that is truly personal and truly my own.