On Orange Gods and the One Apple God

_{Barry Arrington
October 19, 2014

Off Topic

3}_{Categories
Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Barry, I know that you were referring to God that is the "unconditioned cause of reality." I quoted you extensively to make that clear. 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.Aleta_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PST}

PS: Notice this, on systematic theology from Wayne Grudem in his 1,000 pp short intro . . . serious works on this area run 4,000 - 6,000 pp as a rule:
"[i]n systematic theology, summaries of biblical teachings must be worded precisely to guard against misunderstandings and to exclude false teachings." [Systematic Theology, Zondervan (1994), p. 24.]
That is, this is a highly technical area, prone to people out of their depth saying things that may be superficially persuasive but which will not bear serious scrutiny. Before proceeding one must set foundations aright, and BTW that is where worldview level and core historical issues come to the fore. Not an easy and brief exercise, and one that demands not only lifelong reflection but ever increasing moral transformation through the love of the truth and truthing it in love as in no other area are we more prone to be led astray by the deceit lurking within our own hearts. Beyond, as I warned a young man the other day, in handling the scriptures you are only really ready for an independent view when as soon as a significant text is announced, quoted or read, you hear it, you hear its context and you hear it in its wider context. This, takes years of the sort of effort just outlined. Fair, plainly spoken warning. (You may wish to look at the prelim remarks unit for the above.)kairosfocus_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PST}

Maybe my reference to retrograde civilizations should be revised to account a civilization starting down the path of self-destruction having adopted an oppressive anti-God cultural leadership.groovamos_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PST}

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. For those needing some 101 sys theol primer level stuff relevant to this thread, I suggest the draft course units: 1: Nicene Creed, tabulation: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/comparison-table-of-nicene-creed-and.html --> definitive of the core consensus historic, C1 witness, NT attested Christian faith 2: Historical foundations: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-1-biblical-foundations-of-and-core.html#u1_grnds --> Note context that addresses many commonly seen issues and objections, starting with truth, faith and why holding some things to be true is not a manifestation of intellectual incompetence 3: Worldviews foundations http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu --> Includes, the problem of evils and the worldviews clash challenge 4: The Godhead http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-3-our-anchorage-in-god.html#u3_maker --> Note o/l on the triune understanding of God: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-3-our-anchorage-in-god.html#u3_shamrok 5: The Christ of God http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-5-restorer-christ-promised.html#u5_intro --> How Christians understand Messiah, why. (And includes Islamic objections.) 6: Salvation and the Gospel http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-6-gospel.html#accor_scrip --> Where the rubber meets the road I trust these will help. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PST}

Barry: ...the God of the three great monotheistic faiths Barry I gave up a long time ago that concept of Allah as identically God. I base the previous on the drastic divergence of civilizations, one retrograde, the other not. So maybe one of the three great monotheistic faiths can in future be seen as Vedanta. Study of the thousands of years old scriptures of this tradition would show anyone that the supreme being we in the west conceive of is no different from the supreme being of that tradition. Many books from India refer to a supreme being referred to as "God". Members of my family worship Jesus as God, so I see no difference where people worship Krishna or Ganesha as God.groovamos_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PST}

I reiterate post #16: https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/on-orange-gods-and-the-one-apple-god/#comment-520003 and post #30 https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/on-orange-gods-and-the-one-apple-god/#comment-520039Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PST}

Aleta:
When someone says he believes in just one more God than a theist, almost certainly they are referring to God as he is commonly know to the culture, such as the one who sent Jesus here 2000 years ago, one who judges in some way what one’s destiny is at death, etc.
This is just nonsense. Once more from the top:
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.
There can be only one such God. Therefore, such a God would not vary from culture to culture. As I noted in my previous comment, some people would hold views that are closer to the truth about that God than others, but that does not mean there can be more than one such God. You should read Hart’s book. It would cure you of this particular brand of nonsense. [This is me not holding my breath; my guess is that you have no wish to be cured from this brand of nonsense.]Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PST}

You would sem to have excluded Brahma, the Ground of Being of Hinduism, from your ‘God’ category. Why is that?
Good question. You should read Hart’ book that I reference above, where he discusses this issue. Hart allows that the conception of Brahma as the Ground of Being is close to the conception of the one God in the monotheistic religions. He alludes to this when he talks about both east and west in the passage I quote.
Also, the Mormons consider the God of Christianity to be a contingent being, having been elevated to Godhood by a similar God in a preceding universe. “As God once was, so man is. As God is, so man will be.”
I don’t disagree with your description of Mormon doctrine. I am not sure what your point is. If it is that the Mormons’ conception of the God described in the Bible is seriously flawed, I could not agree more.
So the God of Islam is the same as the God of Christianity is the same as the Jewish God?
I have the conception of God in view. In the three great monotheistic religions (and indeed as Sergmendes points out Brahma in Hinduism) God is conceived, as Hart notes, as follows:
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.
There seems to have been some confusion about whether I believe “Allah” of Islam (and now that I’ve included him “Brahma” of Hinduism) is in fact God. There can be only one such God as Hart describes. As an orthodox Christian I believe that the God of the Bible is the God Hart describes (so does he by the way). That said, C.S. Lewis famously noted that “As in arithmetic-there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some answers are much nearer being right than others.” A Muslim's grasping toward "Allah," for example, is wrong about God, but he is much nearer to the truth than a Viking praying to Odin.Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST}

Moreover, I reiterate post 62 https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/on-orange-gods-and-the-one-apple-god/#comment-520094 i.e. It is not as if evidence for the divinity of Christ is lacking!bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PST}

Actually, Jesus is no orange,, Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PST}

Barry describes the God of western monotheism in abstract terms as the "pure being that is the source of all being", and he quotes David Bentley Hart as saying "God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. ... 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." He then says that this God is the apple to which all the other Gods are oranges - that believing in this necessary God that is the ground of all being is fundamentally different than believing in all those other contingent Gods of the various other religions. However, believing in the existence of God as the ultimate ground of all being does not imply that it is necessary to believe in the particularities of that God as described in in the various western religions: the existence of Jesus Christ and his role in relationship to salvation from original sin, the existence of a heaven or hell to which the soul will go after death, the role of Mohammed as the one true prophet, etc. Those are all cultural inventions that go far beyond a belief in the God that Barry describes in the OP. That is the God that atheists, as a general class, don't believe in. The God of Jesus Christ and all the dogma associated with that belief is an orange - it is not the apple. In the Darwin Debating Devices, a strawman argument is described as "a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument. The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and then to refute or defeat that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the original proposition." Barry has built and knocked down a strawman. When someone says he believes in just one more God than a theist, almost certainly they are referring to God as he is commonly know to the culture, such as the one who sent Jesus here 2000 years ago, one who judges in some way what one's destiny is at death, etc. Those beliefs are no different than beliefs about all the other Gods that people have ever believed in - cultural inventions which the atheist doesn't believe in. Barry's singling out the most abstract notion of a ground of all being as the apple avoids the real issue that atheists wish to address, which is that all the particular religious beliefs of all religions, including western monotheism, are indeed oranges.Aleta_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PST}

John 10 17"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18"No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PST}

So Joe, you hold the materialistic position that you have no mind or soul? I would have never guessed that you, of all people, would deny the primacy of your own mind/soul over your mortal body to try to win a debate!bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PST}

Dionisio- Ravi said there are only 66 books in the Bible. The evidence disagrees.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PST}

Who said Jesus died? The people who took him off of the cross and placed him in the tomb.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PST}

Who said that "Jesus died",,, Jesus's mortal body may have died but no one hold that the person/soul of Jesus died!bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PST}

“There is one God, the Father, ever-living, omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.…”. Sir Isaac Newton http://christiancalculus.com/index-.html#Newton Moreover, as to how seriously Newton took the claims of Christianity, Newton, an avid student of Bible prophecy, predicted the return of Israel to their Biblical homeland, and the subsequent return of Christ to this earth following that restoration of Israel: Israeli library uploads (Sir Isaac) Newton's theological texts - February 15, 2012 Excerpt: He's considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time.,, However, the curator of Israel's national library's humanities collection said Newton was also a devout Christian who dealt far more in theology than he did in physics,, "He (Sir Isaac Newton) took a great interest in the Jews, and we found no negative expressions toward Jews in his writing," said Levy-Rubin. "He (years before it was remotely feasible) said the Jews would ultimately return to their land." http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-israeli-library-uploads-newton-theological.html Newton’s end times calculation corrected! Excerpt: In a manuscript number 7.3g, f. 13v. of the Yahuda collection, Newton was even more specific about the 2060 date. "So then the time times & half a time are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, reckoning twelve months to a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of lived [sic for "long lived"] kingdoms, the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end A.C. 2060." Therefore, correcting Newton’s date, the year 753 B.C. designates the founding of the physical Rome while A.D. 753 establishes the rebirth of spiritual Rome. Counting 1,260 years forward from A.D. 753, one arrives at the year 2013. http://www.wnd.com/2008/09/75434/ Of note as to establishing a more correct start date for 'spiritual Rome': Donation of Pepin Excerpt: When Pepin conquered Ataulf the ex-archate of Ravenna fell into his hands. Pepin gave both the ex-archate and the Republic of Rome to the Pope, and this munificent gift is the famous “Donation” on which rested the whole fabric of the temporal power of the Popes of Rome (A.D. 755). http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/brewers/donation-pepin.html Thus adjusting 2013 + 2 = 2015,,,, also of note in regards to the Newton prophecy: Adam Clarke's Commentary - from the year 1825 Comments on Daniel 7:25 In 1798 the French republican army under General Berthier took possession of the city of Rome, and entirely superseded the whole papal power. This was a deadly wound, though at present it appears to be healed. If the papal power, as a horn or temporal power, be intended here, which is most likely, (and we know that that power was given in 755 to Pope Stephen II by Pepin, king of France) counting one thousand two hundred and sixty years from that, we are brought to A.D. 2015, about one hundred and ninety years from the present [A.D. 1825.]" http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs019/1100535186463/archive/1102489424082.htmlbornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PST}

Joe, You may want to take a look at this: http://www.rzim.org/just-thinking/is-the-father-of-jesus-the-god-of-muhammad-a-conversation-with-timothy-george/ http://www.bible-quran.com/ravi-zacharias-bible-quran/Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PST}

By all the evidence Jesus is God.
What evidence would that be? Jesus died, God cannot. God does not require a resurrection. God does not require a woman to give birth to God.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PST}

Axel- Newton was one of the greatest Biblical scholars of all time.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PST}

The God of Abraham is the God of Islam. And no amount of whining will ever change that. Just because Islam has a different take on that God does not mean it isn't the same God.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PST}

Jesus either IS God or else He must be a madman!
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” ? C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PST}

Perhaps one important reason why these discussions can easily turn into heated arguments, is described in this short article: http://www.rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/the-scandal-of-the-cross-3/ Fortunately, so far, this discussion is going smoothly. :)Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PST}

Barry, You would sem to have excluded Brahma, the Ground of Being of Hinduism, from your 'God' category. Why is that? Also, the Mormons consider the God of Christianity to be a contingent being, having been elevated to Godhood by a similiar God in a preceding universe. "As God once was, so man is. As God is, so man will be."sergmendes_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PST}

'BTW the trinity is contrived. Sir Isaac Newton pointed that out.' Joe, that's because Newton was only acquainted with mechanistic Newtonian physics, and hadn't realised what tickled Bohr to death, namely: 'How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.' 'Two sorts of truth: profound truths ?recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth,? in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.' ' The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.' 'It is the hallmark of any deep truth that its negation is also a deep truth.' Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.' 'Opposites are complementary.' ... and the Most Holy Trinity, my friends consists of three Persons in one Nature. The reasons for settling on this paradoxical definition can be found in Scripture. It was mooted that they were three aspects of God, but Jesus spoke of each of them as persons, and indeed, God, too (!)(in the continuum/aggregate), in one divine nature. It's all there.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PST}

Joe The God of Abraham is not Allah no matter how much you would like it to be, there are just too many inconsistencies and a lack of any type of validation of the word of one man. Islam as a religion has 1 witness.... Christianity on the other hand had at least 11 and that excludes all the prophets of the old testament. By all the evidence Jesus is God. You see Joe Christianity is completely apart from any other faith and here is why..... All other faiths tell you to DO better so that you may win favour with God. Christianity is what I call a DONE religion. God saved us He gets all the credit and there is NOTHING anyone can EVER do to win their salvation. Seriously do you think anybody here has what it takes to impress the Creator of the universe? Nah we are at His mercy and His plan of salvation for us. The created can never satisfy the Creator.Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PST}

We see Mohammad punting the moon in his writings no doubt to appeal to the moon cult worshipers at the time...... 31 and we have set none but angels as guardians of the fire; and we have fixed their number only as a trial for unbelievers,-- in order that the people of the book may arrive at certainty, and the believers may increase in faith,-- and that no doubts may be left for the people of the book and the believers, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the unbelievers may say, "what symbol doth Allah intend by this?" thus doth Allah leave to stray whom he pleaseth, and guide whom he pleaseth: and none can know the forces of thy lord, except he. and this is no other than a warning to mankind. 32 nay, verily: by the moon, 33 and by the night as it retreateth, 34 and by the dawn as it shineth forth,Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PST}

Well the God of Abraham is the God of Islam.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PST}

Excellent post Barry!KRock_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PST}

Jesus was not God. That does not make him a mad man. Who confused Ishmael with Islam?Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply