On Orange Gods and the One Apple God

_{Barry Arrington

October 19, 2014

Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This morning a friend said she had recently heard an atheist make the “I am atheistic about just one more god than you are” argument. Ricky Gervais makes the argument this way:

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

Like many things the new atheists say, the argument has a kind of first blush plausibility but does not hold up on even a moment’s reflection. As David Bentley Hart explains in The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, Gervais has made a glaring category error by lumping the God of the three great monotheistic faiths in with other “gods”:

according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.

Properly understood, the God of the monotheistic faiths is not like the gods in the Greek, Norse or Indian pantheons – contingent creatures all. He is pure being that is the source of all being. He is the necessary being, and by definition there can be only one necessary being. The necessary being cannot be compared to contingent beings. To lump the God of the monotheistic faiths in with Odin demonstrates that you understand neither God nor Odin.

Think of it this way. Gervais says in essense: “There are a bunch of oranges, and I disbelieve in all of the oranges without exception. You are little different from me because you admit that you also disbelieve in all of the oranges, except for that last little orange that you irrationally insist on clinging to.” No, Ricky, just like you I disbelieve in all of the oranges without exception. But I do believe in an apple. Why should I stop believing in an apple just because I don’t believe in oranges?

Comments

138 Axel That's an interesting comment you wrote. Now, help me with this: Those who deny God, definitely don't think of spending eternity in His glorious presence and don't care about it. Do you agree up to this point? Therefore, they don't have to fear an eternity of torment, because regardless of whether heaven is true or not, either way they won't be forced to be in heaven against their will. Are you still with me on this? I believe God is pure and just. Since no one meets His high standards, not even remotely in our most fantastic dreams, no one qualifies for eternity in heaven, regardless of what you think or do, or who we are, or how we talk, etc. Nobody. Read my lips: NOBODY. Are we still on the same page? By now you might have figured out where I'm heading with this, right?Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Axel- 136 was in jest- But I hold Newton to be "a god of science" (small "g")- just as Hendrix was "a god of guitar". No one disses Jimy and no one disses Isaac.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

@ your #61, Joe; 'Mark Frank: Most religions include a creation story, many purport to account for morality, many include miracles … Materialistic atheism fits that description.' Hilarious! One of those 'spot on' smack-downs; an epigram.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Oh - well, good. I am happy, then to leave this interesting conversation - I've appreciated the opportunity to express my views - knowing that I am at least "not utterly irrational"! :-)Aleta_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Aleta:
In what way am I “more wrong” than other atheists (assuming that is what you meant.)
I actually meant the opposite. At the very least you are not utterly irrational like the atheist who denies that a necessary being is, well, necessary.Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

@ringo #15 “Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God,” – Chesterton Now they tell me! Have I spent all these years looking in the wrong place? I have heard it said that a man comes out of the womb and spends the rest of his life trying to get back in. I suspect, not in the sense of a foetus, either. But both would in some sense chime with Chesterton's metaphor, wouldn't they?Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Barry:
Properly understood, the God of the monotheistic faiths is not like the gods in the Greek, Norse or Indian pantheons – contingent creatures all
Steveh
So true. IIRC, they also put sugar in their porridge. Of course, correctly understood the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is actually a valid logical device if qualified in a condescending manner.
Steveh, I’m not sure whether you have failed to understand the argument of the OP or the nature of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Perhaps you don’t understand either. I will try to help you. The “no true Scotsman’ fallacy does not mean, as you imply, that attempts to draw category distinctions are inherently fallacious. There are, after all, people who are from Scotland and people who are not from Scotland. The “no true Scotsman” is in play only when ad hoc unreasoned distinctions are drawn in an attempt to save an invalid category distinction. Now to the OP. The category “necessary being” is not ad hoc; nor is it unreasoned. Therefore, when I point out that comparing contingent beings to a necessary being is a category error, I have not committed the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Hope that helps. BTW, adding a little smiley face at the end of an erroneous assertion coated in sarcasm does not make it any less erroneous. It only serves to make you appear silly and unserious. Just saying.Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Barry, do you not believe that the distinction I make between atheism and materialism is valid, or do you accept the distinction I make between a personal and non-personal "unconditional cause" and just think I am wrong about a non-personal unconditional cause being the case, or even being possible? In what way am I "more wrong" than other atheists (assuming that is what you meant.)Aleta_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

@Turbokid #8 'Why would anyone fear an eternity of torment if the God is all-compassionate?' One short, but highly relevant answer, it seems to me, is that, because, as with QM, the deepest truths tend to be paradoxical. Maybe, actually, ALL of them are.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

128 Joe:
I am OK with not discussing theology as I don’t give a hoot about it. However when people say things that I know to be incorrect I will respond.
No comments. What you wrote is sufficiently clear to confirm that stopping this discussion is wiser than continuing it. Perhaps others agree too? ciao amico!Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Axel- Newton approached the Bible meticulously. Now if you have more fighting words then save them until we meet. And that is just because I hold that man in very high esteem and is nothing against you, unless of course you persist. ;)Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

homerj @#1 tee! hee! Great comparison.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

One thing that still invests him with a quasi-iconic status in this poor pilgrim's eyes, Joe, even if somewhat nutty from a Christian, as opposed to, say, a Buddhist angle, is that he is alleged to have come to despise either physics (natural sciences?), maths, or both!Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Aleta, thank you for expanding your views at 129.
Atheism is not synonymous with materialism, and while all materialists are atheists, all atheists are not necessarily materialists.
Just as some religions are more wrong than others, some atheists are more wrong than others.Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Her is the joke I was looking for the other week. It concerns a 'nutter' theologian called Paul Tillich. Pardon me if you know about him, I don't mean to come across as patronising. A story is told that Jesus met two people at the pearly gates to heaven. The Apostle Peter and the theologian Paul Tillich. He asked Peter, “Who do you say I am?” and Peter replied, “You’re my Lord and savior, Yeshua Ha Machaich (Jesus, the Messiah), and you paid for my sins with your bloody sacrifice on the cross.” Jesus replied, “Welcome to heaven, Peter my brother, and to eternal life, and to the fellowship of God and the saints.” Jesus then asked Paul Tillich, “Who do you say I am?” And Paul Tillich answered, “Well, existentially, you’re the ground of all being, escatalogically, you’re the ground for all hope, and theologically, you’re the ground for the divine-human encounter.” Jesus replied, “Come again?”Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Joe, Newton's forays into theology are considered, to put it mildly, highly idiosyncratic. Here is why, without knowing anything about it other than that, I don't have the slightest doubt that his theology would, indeed, be 'off the wall'. To find incompetence among modern, highly accredited, even acclaimed theologians and scripture scholars, as, in fact, is the case, on the face of it, seems peculiar, doesn't it? But that is the reality. The key distinguishing feature, uniquely significant, indeed, of the good theologians and scripture scholars of modern times, as against the incompetent (in the legal sense), is the profundity of their 'interior life', their prayer-life, their spiritual life. And that has always been the case and always will be. Not that all people with a profound prayer life are theologians, good or bad, but those who are theologians will be distinguished by that criterion. The others, however, will write lots of books, which are likely to appear in the book-cases of many a presbytery and Catholic book-shop. Although more so in the seventies, I believe. It appears however that Newton was quite a nasty 'piece of work' in his daily dealings, having evinced a hideous jealousy of that inventor of the maritime clock, Harrison, for example. That would be absolutely crucially indicative.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Properly understood, the God of the monotheistic faiths is not like the gods in the Greek, Norse or Indian pantheons – contingent creatures all
So true. IIRC, they also put sugar in their porridge. Of course, correctly understood the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is actually a valid logical device if qualified in a condescending manner. :-)steveh_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

When I wrote, "I do believe that there is most likely some “unconditional cause of reality", Barry wrote, "Then I don’t understand why you call yourself an atheist. By definition you are not." This question goes beyond the everyday meaning of the saying in the OP, but I welcome the opportunity to answer it. Theism involves more than just the belief in an "“unconditional cause of reality", which is one of the phrases I chose to quote in order to not bring up the larger issue now arising: theism involves the idea of a conscious, willful, divine being. Theism entails a personal unconditional cause. But that unconditional cause need not be personal. Some philosophies (they are usually not called religions) hold that there is a non-material cause and underlying structure beyond/behind the physical world which impinges creatively in different ways upon the world, in a manner analogous to the way gravity impacts the physical world and helps create galaxies, stars,etc. This would be non-personal unconditional cause, not a personal one, and I don't think anyone would refer to such a cause as a God. So, to follow the metaphor of the OP, I believe that attaching the personal qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence to the unconditional cause is a jump from the apple to an orange. Such qualities attached to a theistic God are anthropomorphisms that are cultural inventions - making myths which see the universe as an abstract idealization of our own limited, imperfect nature. So, by believing in such an impersonal unconditional cause, I think it is proper to call me an atheist, for I do not believe that at its uttermost core, reality has the qualities of a person. And perhaps to forestall an objection, I'll point out that my belief is not the same as materialism. Atheism is not synonymous with materialism, and while all materialists are atheists, all atheists are not necessarily materialists.Aleta_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

I am OK with not discussing theology as I don't give a hoot about it. However when people say things that I know to be incorrect I will respond. over and out ;)Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

KF @ 113
F/N: In my opinion, “doctrinal” theological debates (as opposed to philosophical issues that may have theological etc overtones) are not a fruitful focus for discussion at UD, not only for distractve side issue reasons but because of the lack of in-common grounding to move to that level.
Agree. Then on post #125 KF again advised:
...I think UD is not the place for detailed theological, doctrinal debates,...
Agree. BTW, as early as post #75 subtlety suggested we start getting out of this discussion: https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/on-orange-gods-and-the-one-apple-god/#comment-520110Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

BA and Aleta et al: Maybe I should do a bit of unpacking. The unconditioned ground or root of reality is a necessary being and the source-sustainer of reality. The nature of observed reality, the cosmos, points to an enormously powerful and highly intelligent, purposeful being, as does the world of life. That is already a personal being. Our inescapable sense that we are under the moral government of the right, in the core of our conscious being, speaks to a Moral ground of OUGHT, the IS who grounds ought. Moral Governor. In answer to the IS-OUGHT gap, this can only reasonably be understood to be an inherently good, necessary, maximally great being, root and sustainer of reality. We see here the God of the philosophers, who is already worthy of deep respect and indeed worship and even prayer. Why not sincerely reach out to him in prayer and ask him to reveal himself more clearly? In that pursuit, given the heritage of our civilisation and the remarkable events of Judaea c 30 AD, I suggest you pause and watch this vid as a start. It may help you in quite surprising ways. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Joe, I think UD is not the place for detailed theological, doctrinal debates, but I think you need to clarify what it means for a man to die, and in what way do those who hold Jesus the incarnate Second person [rather roughly, face] of the triune God understand his death, burial and resurrection. Remember, sometimes things seem absurd because we have a prioris that make them so, they are not absurd when understood in their own proper terms. I would not be so hasty with one liner dismissals, especially since some of the greatest minds of all times have been orthodox Christians, e.g. Aquinas, who is actually author of one of the greatest systematic theologies of all time. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Aleta, thank you for your thoughtful response.
Barry writes, “if the God of the Bible is the “unconditioned cause of reality,”…” But what if he isn’t?
That is the $64,000 question isn’t it. Can I demonstrate with apodictic certainty that the God of the Bible is the “unconditioned cause of reality”? You know the answer to that. Of course not. Can it be demonstrated that he is beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes. Nevertheless, God allows you to insist on disbelieving in the face of all the evidence. At the end of the day, whether to accept that evidence or reject it for whatever reason will always be your choice.
Just because [Christian theology] it is right about the existence of this unconditioned cause doesn’t mean it’s right about Jesus, or heaven and hell, etc.
Correct as a matter of pure logic. Incorrect as a matter of the application of judgment to the evidence.
I do believe that there is most likely some “unconditional cause of reality”,
Then I don’t understand why you call yourself an atheist. By definition you are not.
but I also believe that any of mankind’s attempts to add specificity to our understanding of that cause is a cultural invention – all religions are wrong in their details.
The statement “mankind’s attempt to add” is an assumption on your part; it is not a conclusion compelled by the evidence. Indeed, with respect to Christian theology, the assumption is seriously undermined by the evidence.
So back to the original point: when I say I am an atheist I mean that I don’t believe in any of the Gods of mankind’s religions, including the Christian one (which is one more than you disbelieve in).
But as I said above if you believe in a being who is the “unconditional cause of reality”, you are not an atheist. Indeed, you are very close to the truth about God.
Making the definition of God as abstract as ““unconditioned cause of reality” may make it possible to claim that all the religions have the same God,
Again, I do not claim that all religions have the same God. Just the opposite is the case. I absolutely insist that all religions do not have the same God. That said, some religions are more wrong about God than others. It follows that some religions are more right than others.
but it is also not what the vast majority of people mean when they say they do or don’t believe in God.
Probably you are correct. When most people say they do or not believe in God they have a particular revelation of God in mind rather than a purely “abstract unconditioned cause of reality.” The point has no force with respect to the issue in the OP for the reasons I have already stated.Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Barry writes, "if the God of the Bible is the “unconditioned cause of reality,”..." But what if he isn't? Sure, Christian theology identifies its God with this "unconditioned cause", but it also adds many other properties and actions to God that are not in any way a necessary consequence of being the unconditioned cause. Just because it is right about the existence of this unconditioned cause doesn't mean it's right about Jesus, or heaven and hell, etc. I do believe that there is most likely some "unconditional cause of reality", but I also believe that any of mankind's attempts to add specificity to our understanding of that cause is a cultural invention - all religions are wrong in their details. So back to the original point: when I say I am an atheist I mean that I don't believe in any of the Gods of mankind's religions, including the Christian one (which is one more than you disbelieve in). Making the definition of God as abstract as "“unconditioned cause of reality" may make it possible to claim that all the religions have the same God, but it is also not what the vast majority of people mean when they say they do or don't believe in God.Aleta_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

bornagain77:
ou claim that Jesus died and that God cannot die and that therefore Jesus is not God.
That is only one reason but it is enough.
noted in response to you that the soul/mind of Jesus did not die and only his mortal body died therefore God did not literally ‘die’.
Only mortal bodies die- that includes everyone. So everyone is God?Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Aleta
My point is that is not the only aspect of God the vast majority of people are referring to when they say they do or don’t believe in God. The jump from the “unconditioned cause of reality” to the God of the Bible, with all its historical stories and theological dogma, including its claiming itself to be the holy word of God, is a jump from the apple to an orange.
No, if the God of the Bible is the “unconditioned cause of reality,” he is the apple and can only be the apple. It is true that the Bible makes claims about God (his triune nature, for example). Those claims do not make him other than the “unconditioned cause of reality.” To continue to use (perhaps abuse) my metaphor, saying the apple is red does not make it an orange.Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

groovamos, you do not seem to have read my 109.Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

101 and 102 are pretty clear Joe, You claim that Jesus died and that God cannot die and that therefore Jesus is not God. I noted in response to you that the soul/mind of Jesus did not die and only his mortal body died therefore God did not literally 'die'. You came back again and said,, "Who said Jesus died? The people who took him off of the cross and placed him in the tomb." So did Jesus literally 'die', cease to exist, as you claim in 'God cannot die', or did Jesus merely 'lay his body down to take it back up again'? If you say he ceased to exist then that means you deny the reality of your own indestructible soul/mind. Pretty straight forward logic Joe!bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

So Joe, you hold the materialistic position that you have no mind or soul?
How does that follow from anything I have said?Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Of note: Since Gödel was the one who developed the incompleteness theorem,
Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video https://vimeo.com/92387853
,,, and since Kurt Godel may know a thing or two about ontology because of that breakthrough in mathematics, then the following may be of related interest to some people,,,
Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - Oct. 23, 2013 Excerpt: Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel.,,, researchers,, say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel,,, Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct,,, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
Of note, although most people, as well as theologians, philosophers and logicians, would certainly think that proving Godel's ontological argument for the existence of God logically true, and consistent, was a pretty big deal, it seems the author of the article (and researchers?) were more impressed with the advance in computer programming that it represented than they were impressed with the fact that they proved Godel's proof was actually true. This is how the author of the article put it:
"and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."
I think someone may have their priorities a bit confused in that article. And as weird as it may sound, this following video refines the Ontological argument into a proof that, because of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’, God must exist in more than one person:
The Ontological Argument for the Triune God - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGVYXog8NUg
i.e. without this distinction we are stuck with the logical contradiction of maximally great love being grounded in ones own self which is the very antithesis of maximally great love. Also of note, Gödel, who ruffled more than a few feathers in math and physics with the incompleteness theorem, also had this to say,,,
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
Supplemental note:
A Mono-Theism Theorem: Gödelian Consistency in the Hierarchy of Inference - Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II - June 2014 Abstract: Logic is foundational in the assessment of philosophy and the validation of theology. In 1931 Kurt Gödel derailed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica by showing logically that any set of consistent axioms will eventually yield unknowable propositions. Gödel did so by showing that, otherwise, the formal system would be inconsistent. Turing, in the first celebrated application of Gödelian ideas, demonstrated the impossibility of writing a computer program capable of examining another arbitrary program and announcing whether or not that program would halt or run forever. He did so by showing that the existence of a halting program can lead to self-refuting propositions. We propose that, through application of Gödelian reasoning, there can be, at most, one being in the universe omniscient over all other beings.,,, http://robertmarks.org/REPRINTS/2014_AMonoTheismTheorem.pdf
bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply