On the God Concept, Religion

When talking on the God-concept I usually quickly find myself in isolation. This is probably because of my rather unorthodox views on the subject, at least in contrast with the majority of Americans. Somewhere around 90% of Americans believe in God in some form or another after all. But I think that the topic of God helps pave the way for many of the explanations for various further reflections on our existence and ramifications for society therein. I felt that it was imperative, therefore, that the subject of God, religion, and ultimately our purpose was dealt with first. I think that understanding the contradictions of the God-concept and its further ramifications of materialism (in the sense of objects existing inherently, which will be explained later) help to better understand the world you live in and its implications for a better outlook.

There is no better place to begin with this topic than to posit the obvious contradictions inherent in the God-concept and god-concept (small “g”). The difference being, “god” as the philosophical posit of a transcendent perfect being as the ‘ultimate cause’, while “God” as the religious (mostly Abrahamic) conception of a personified existence of the former. I will first speak of the former (god-concept) as a general introduction into the more specific objectification of this concept in the religious context.

The god-concept posits that essentially the universe has an ultimate cause. Being that, because existence is, that “something cannot come from nothing” and that our very reality is an effect of this cause. There are a number of different things that cause this theory to fall in on itself, but first I will point out the obvious. The nature of this theory presupposes that this god created existence as a totality of all things existing. Then by a very obvious logical deduction, god would have to be objectified from the totality of all existing things, thereby putting him in non-existence (outside existence). Therefore by the theory’s very nature, god’s existence is impossible. If an entity supposedly existed outside of existence (in order to create it), that would assume this entity’s non-existence (because ‘it’ is outside existence). It is an obvious logical fallacy. One cannot exist and at the same time remain in non-existence.

Thus the only way around this fallacy is to presuppose god’s alleged existence as his own inherent totality (objectified from ‘our’ existence, in order to create it). However, this merely extends the very problem that the god-concept was supposed to have solved; that is, ’something from nothing’. Because, god as a separate entity existing in his own totality would assume (according to the very logic of theism), that as “something”, god would have to have come from “something”. Therefore a creator of god would be necessary. As well as a creator of that creator, and a creator of that creator, and so on ad infinitum. Thus producing an infinite regression rendering the theory of theism obsolete. Likewise, the idea that god is somehow ‘objectified’ from our existence does not seem to have any intention of remaining logical. That is, how can two ‘existences’ be separated from each other by “nothingness”? Nothingness isn’t some void or empty space, but rather it is the absence of space-time. Therefore, two existences as their own totalities (existing inherently) cannot be separated because there is (literally) nothing to separate them. So by the very nature of the god-concept, it presupposes the validity of inherent existence (that is, two existences separated from each other and sustaining completely on their own as god would have to be objectified from his creation [ie. existence]).

In light of this paradox, it might bug you that these presuppositions are inherent in your religious conception of God. That is, God (with a capital “G”), as a personification of the god-concept of ultimate cause. In fact, when shining some light onto the nature of the God-concept, it becomes obvious that the religious context of this conception is even more inherently flawed than the philosophical inquiry into ultimate cause. Without even mentioning the very numerous literary contradictions inherent in the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions (the Bible, Torah, Qur’an, etc.), the very idea of God as objectified in the image of man seems highly presumptuous and egotistical. To paraphrase the popular saying: man was not created in God’s image, but God was created in man’s. It is rooted in the highly arrogant view that somehow humanity (and Earth) are at the center of the universe; that this highly subtle and irrelevant speck of dust in the great cosmos is somehow center stage in an seemingly infinite field of great cosmic happenings.

When one properly investigates the Christian religion along side all past religions (most notably the ancient Egyptians), once begins to notice its obvious literary parallelism. One begins to notice that Christian faith and doctrine are actually rooted in old ancient pagan myth and astrology. It’s made so obvious that many of Jesus’ famous canonized stories is almost straight plagiarism from past deities. The sun-god Horus, for example, also known as “the Lamb of God”, was born of a miracle birth from a virgin, performed miracles, was crucified and died only to be resurrected three days later. This general story permeates a multitude of other different cultures, religions and their ’saviors’ who all had the basic structure. Attis of ancient Greece, was born of a virgin, born on December 25th, crucified, died, and resurrected three days later. Krishna of India and Dionysus of Greece have the exact same attributes. Mithra of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, miracles, had 12 disciples, and the sacred day of worship of Mithra is Sunday. Dozens of more cultures have the exact same story, and most of them tell of three ‘kings’ (or ‘wisemen’) that follow the star in the east to the birth of the savior. The reasons behind this parallelism is purely astrological.

Watch the following video (excerpt from the film Zeitgeist) for a more adequate explanation about the myth of Abrahamic religions:

But I digress. As stated earlier, one of the primary presuppositions of the god-concept is the validity and compatibility of inherent existence. When one reflects upon the contradictions of inherent existence (separation of existences by nothingness, etc.) one not only begins to realize the downfalls of theism but also a more appropriate and encompassing world view than your former theistic tendencies. If one were to digress from the presuppositions of theism and state as a condition that inherent existence is impossible, then one would ultimately have to face the consequence that everything is dependent-arising. That is, if nothing exists inherently, supported on its own, separate from existence, then everything is dependent upon and a part of existence. Thus the true elegance of negating the god concept and inherent existence; everything is essentially one. When one begins to look at the rest of existence as a part of him or herself, then petty differences and divisions among them are seen as trivial and a compassionate outlook is more possible. When one gets the concept of inherent existence out of one’s mind, negated also are the old conceptions of competition among man (that other human beings aren’t seen as a source of unity and cooperation, but a source to be expended and exploited for one’s own gain). By the nature of realizing the dependent-arising nature of all phenomena, selfishness by nature is negated.

There is one religion and perhaps the only religion that is not only compatible with negating inherent existence but preaches it, and that religion is Buddhism. The main tenet behind Buddhism is essentially generating compassion and thereby gaining enlightenment (or Buddhahood) through a conscious realization of compassion and the reality of all phenomena dependent-arising (or as they call it “Sunyata“, or “Emptiness”). While many schools of Buddhism remain antiquated and for the most part contain just as illogical paradoxes as the Abrahamic religions; many of its basic conceptions are compatible with science and logic in negating inherent existence and permanence. Like Christianity, Buddhism was a missionary religion that was exported beyond borders. Unlike Christianity, however, Buddhist doctrine wasn’t forced upon different cultures but the different cultures took Buddhism as their own and adapted it to their culture. With the arrival of Buddhism in the west, we see this happening once again. The more contemporary western conception of Buddhism essentially rejects many of the older vestiges left over from the transition from Hinduism (that is, many rejections of almost deity-like figures, the transferal of consciousness form life to life [or reincarnation], and even sometimes karma as a universal cosmic force). It would essentially be the equivalent of a new Christian movement rejecting the old vestiges of Judaism (Old Testament, etc); whereas Christianity sprouted as an divergence in ideology from Judaism, Buddhism sprouted from Hinduism. No one quite represented this new movement like Albert Einstein, who was quoted claiming Buddhism remains the last religion that can cope with modern scientific needs and that it would probably become the cosmic religion of the future. This quote from Albert Einstein reflects the sentiments of Buddhism:

A human being is part of the whole, called by us ‘Universe’; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest–a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compasion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.”

–Albert Einstein

That being said, you begin to realize how the notion that atheism connotes selfishness and immorality is very false and ill-conceived. In fact it is my contention that without a god in the picture, morality being based on these premises and the basis of humanity and nature as opposed to scripture written by a people of ignorance two thousand years ago is much more real and empowering. The idea of impermanence (in contrast to the Abrahamic conception of eternal life) only makes the now an infinitude more important and relevant. That your time on earth is the only time you have, makes that time seem precious and delicate. In contrast if you had eternal life, however, our finite existence on earth in comparison to an infinite existence would seem infinitely small and insignificant. In this perspective things start to come into focus and an appreciation of life more powerful than before. Likewise in a more practical view, the realization of an atheist existence frees up a considerable amount of time to spend enjoying life as opposed to wasting it by praying to an invisible figure that is supposed to be objectified from your existence anyway. These views on our reality I believe gives people a freedom beyond comparison, however they also have their consequences (positive) on how one views other considerations such as social and economic philosophy.

Understanding the falsehood of the illusion of inherent existence paves the path for a better understanding of other areas of thought. You can now see why I felt it imperative to illustrate these conceptions before I moved onto a more specific category for investigation; whether that be social, economic, political, or ethics philosophy. This is why metaphysics is generally considered the “first philosophy”, because with it everything else follows. All roads lead to Rome, so to speak. There is a lot more on this topic and I suggest reading some literature. I would considerably suggest the writings of Richard Dawkins, the Dalai Lama, or even Jean-Paul Sarte and maybe Spinoza. I clearly did not cover all ground here and I may wish to cover some where I find I missed before moving on to the next topic. But I do wish this clears up some misconceptions about the world you live in before I begin to illustrate their consequences in other areas of thought.

Thank you for reading,
-Daniel