Thursday, December 3, 2009

My slacker god

So I have been a bit underworked of late, which provides plenty of thinking time, so I have been indulging in metaphysics (because nothing improves your life prospects/earning ability/sanity like a bit of ontology). I have been thinking about what kind of god I could believe in. Not that I intend to start, but if I did...

For starters, not your one. Gods who care about whether I'm naughty make zero appeal, because fundamentally it seems difficult to rationalise a transcendental entity who cares about my behaviour. Unless you are raised in a religious tradition, and do not question it too deeply, it's difficult to arrive at the belief. You certainly wouldn't create a god like that. You might want one that cared about you personally, but you'd probably want one who accepted that he'd created you with failings and didn't care about that, not one who considered those failings worthy of punishment. This is, for me, a fundamental problem anyway with the god who hates sins and loves sinners. He created the sinner and the sin both, and being omniscient, knew you would sin, knew whether you had the capacity to repent and also knew whether you would or wouldn't. See, it's a bit of a vicious (or virtuous, if he created you all saintly) circle.

If you are religious, bear with me and please don't take offence, but the people who invented the Christian and Muslim gods did not do it from scratch, so they weren't wholly concerned with making a coherent deity (if you like, you could say that God is what he is, and the reflection of him in the minds of men is not coherent, and that has the same effect, I think).

There is also, of course, the problem of evil. If we have a god that loves us, why is the world so often shit? Why is there pain? Why are some slaves? Why do some babies die and others become deformed? Why are people mean? Most theodicies are utter nonsense, because again this is a fundamental problem with the concept of God. It's such nonsense that he can love you yet give you polio that you need a bunch of nonsense to make it work. I mean, do you cripple the people you love? No, didn't think so. I do like the unitarian approach though, in which God creates a good universe and lets it make of itself what it will. That appeals to my belief that we are fundamentally good (by which I mean we are not fundamentally bad, rather than that we all have a saint inside).

I think this kind of god is possible to believe in: one who made the universe, set it in motion and chose not to know how it would be revealed. You have to rid yourself of the Jesus stuff, but (religious people look away) that was just ripped off from pagan king sacrifice mythology (check out Baldur or Osiris some time).

A god from whom the universe emanates also works quite well. The universe can equally well emanate from nothing but having a "creative force" is more satisfying. The key to these three ideas is that you have a god who can permit free will because he simply doesn't allow himself to know how the universe will pan out. You might believe he did it to entertain himself. It's hard for this god to be fully transcendent though, so he probably needs to be enmeshed in what is. I like a transcendent deity because of course he exists without the universe, which is kind of a sine qua non for creating it. But it's not impossible for the universe to be entwined with God intimately enough that he is not really transcendent. Some people believe this (including pantheists who believe God is entirely immanent). Personally, I don't believe it's possible to believe everything is God because that kind of god has too little meaning. If God is not meaningful, there's not really too much point to having one.

I think it is rational to believe in a god who does not permit free will. One metaphysical idea that appeals to me is the block universe. In a block universe, everything exists at once, timelessly. Variously, this is everything that was, or could have been, everything that is, or could be, and everything that will be, or might be. This allows God easily to be omniscient, simply because he can see the entire universe spread before him, but does not on the face of it permit free will, since he chose everything possible at moment one. However, I've seen it suggested that we live in a block universe, and our minds weave paths through it, creating time for us by choosing from the potentialities that exist. Of course the notion of a fate set in stone is not new, but this allows it to be something that you choose. It opens up the possibility that you can figure out how you choose, and although it seems that you could only change your future by small degrees, you would be able to pick a world you were glad to live in.

Another possibility that I like a lot is that we create our universe on the fly, by consensus. So three thousand years ago, the sun really did circle the Earth and the stars were pinpricks in a firmament, but now things are different because our understanding is different. This makes man the centre of the universe (not literally because our consensus is that there is no centre or that everywhere is the centre, depending on how you look at it), which is in decent accord with the view that God created us specially. It would also be possible for each of us to be living in slightly different overlapping universes. So long as our conceptions of the world were close enough, we would seem to be living in the same world. Only when we were very divergent would we think each other insane. So in your universe, there is a god who cares if you covet your neighbour's ass, but in mine, you can covet what you like and the only person who will care is your neighbour.

So I think I might choose the last kind of god. He gave us each our own universe and doesn't mind what we make of it. It will be however we render it. This god has done us each a huge favour. He did not just give us life; he gave us a whole universe of our own to live it in. And if we want to believe he will punish us for our sins, then he will, and if we don't, he won't. He's not fussed: he gave you the freedom to choose and he doesn't mind what you choose.

5 Comments:

Blogger Don said...

My mother and her second husband went with some versions of these. He it was told me back in the 70s or 80s that all beliefs are right, and that we all create our own universes. He had the books on quantum mechanics and wave theory and all that. I read one or to but some of those books really do have a religious flavor to them. She, similarly I think to your block universe idea, let loose once she believes (or likes the idea) that all of us are the same spirit, loose of time, exploring experience from different angles. The experience was the death of her first child. I think it comforted her to think that his spirit was also hers, and mine, and all the rest of us, experiencing the watershed moment of her life from the perspective of everyone involved.

Well, the verification word is "dying", so there you go.

December 4, 2009 at 2:54 AM  
Blogger Mark in Spokane said...

I just wanted to stop by and thank you for visiting my blog and leaving a comment. I have responded to you over at my blog. Thanks again, and I hope that you continue to visit!

Cheers!

December 4, 2009 at 3:00 AM  
Blogger Father Luke said...

Zenner: I was wondering if you ever read The Tao of Physics.

"Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science; but man needs both." -- Fritjof Capra. It might still even be in print. When I was a Monk, my Archmandrite asked me if I had seen the TIME News magazine article saying that Science had proven the existence of god. I couldn't have been bothered at the time. I had my own god, and not the god of the church.

I had a dream once. I found myself in a room. I was casually dressed, as is my nature, so I felt comfortable wherever it was that I was. And where I was had a secretary.

The secretary said to me: Good morning. And also that the reports I had requested were in my office. I thanked the secretary, and I walked into an office that had dark wood walls, and a deeply polished mahogany desk.

I sat in the chair. I tested my authority in the environment by putting my feet on the desk. I saw I was wearing sneakers.

I pressed a button and spoke into an intercom:

Send in someone, I need to take some notes.

As you please, came the reply over the speaker.

In walked a poorly groomed little man, by that I mean he was wearing a drab suit with extremely wide lapels, holding a steno pad. He had yellowish white hair, rather dirty and greasy, combed over, and he wore thick glasses. When the little man smiled his teeth were yellow, and too big for his mouth, and they were crooked, also.

I gave him a look over in a glance, and began my dictation. He was eager to comply and stood there taking shorthand. I was outlining goals for my life.

Occasionally he would snicker. I asked what was so funny.

Oh, nothing. He said.

No. What is it, I insisted. This is my life. I would really like to know what it is you find so amusing.

The little man said, well, I wouldn't exactly do it this way, but if this is what you want, I'll help you.

I got that the little man was god.

I haven't thought of this in a while.

- -
Father Luke

December 12, 2009 at 9:31 PM  
Blogger Dr Zen said...

Isn't it strange that people think God would be vain and that is why your dream works as a story?

December 12, 2009 at 9:37 PM  
Blogger Father Luke said...

Well, I think it's strange that God would be perceived as being human. Arrogant, actually.

Time is more powerful than me. Gravity is more powerful than me. Music, Love, the changing seasons, the wind, and so Nature itself is stronger than me.

So, yes. Vain/Not Vain God(s), and the anthropomorphic manifestations. . .
Hilarious.

- -
Okay,
Father Luke

December 13, 2009 at 1:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home