- God – An Introduction to the Discussion
Preview of this post
The topic of God is discussed in several series. This post begins the discussion with a short introduction.
- Introduction
While there have been innumerable attempts[1], we cannot define God in a manner that is acceptable to all[2]. In fact, an effort to define God would limit God to what we can envision and God is, and must be, beyond our comprehension. In fact, Maimonides asserts that it is impossible, blasphemous in fact, for us to define God. For Maimonides, God is utterly transcendent, and there is no relation between God and time and place because relation implies some kind of similarity, and there can be absolutely no point of contact between God and the material[3]. However, we can define what God means to each of us individually[4]. We can use science or we can use religion or we can use philosophy or we can use pure reasoning to formulate this definition. However, each of us should make this inquiry as to what God means to us. Even if we conclude that God has no meaning for us, that will be OK, but the conclusion must have been reached through contemplation and reasoning….not a simple statement such as “Oh, I just don’t believe in that.” That is laziness, and an individual’s view of God is far too important to be decided out of laziness. Even if the conclusion is reached to deny the existence of God, that is atheism, such a decision should only be reached after thorough thought and contemplation. Still further, in establishing an agnostic viewpoint, that is, God cannot be established by reasoning, should not be reached without a thorough analysis. Furthermore, the decision cannot be reached because an individual says, “God let me down during some crisis in my life.” This is solipsistic and selfish, and the decision to have a view of God is far too important to rest on selfishness or on solipsism. Still further, the meaning of God cannot be passed off as a simple human conception or useful fiction or a simple metaphor for what humans should be. All of these conclusions should be arrived at only after a careful and thorough analysis because they are all slippery and can change according to the whims of human nature and the constraints and needs of the times. As such, for example, morality, will depend on the situation and be relative; therefore, there will be no rules. If one wishes to organize his life around such a situation,that, of course, is his prerogative. However, such a conclusion should not be made without careful consideration. Therefore, we should make a careful analysis to determine what God means to each of us. Once we have some personal view of God, we might be able to make decisions on our soul, and then be guided in making decisions on what is right, on what is wrong, what our duty is, questions of honor, integrity, morality and the like[5]. Even our very work ethic might be influenced by this investigation for if one believes that there is no God, then one might question if our universe has any meaning and wonder if dedicating one’s self to a profession or calling is useful or even worthwhile.
This series will present several thoughts which might engender such an analysis by the reader. Of course, the thoughts provided in this essay are just that: mere thoughts, they do not even rise to the level of suggestions, let along guides. Each reader will have to arrive at his or her own conclusions.
The Bible makes no attempt to define God, and in fact, makes the assumption that God already exists at the beginning of the narrative since Genesis begins with God already in existence and in the act of creating the world, be-re’shit[6]. The Bible affirms that Yahweh[7] alone creates, He alone reveals Himself, He alone imposes His will upon man and history, that He alone saves and judges. There may be many Elohim (gods worshiped by other peoples at the time), but only one Yahweh. As compared to Yahweh, any Elohim was ineffectual and not worthy of worship, and perhaps not real at all[8]. This conception represents a seismic change in belief from that generally held at that time. The people of the time believed that their gods were fixed in time and place; whereas, the assumption that God already existed prior to the beginning, assumes that God is outside of time and space.
This essay will explore several prior interpretations of God and then propose another interpretation[9].
Preview of the next post
The next post begins the discussion of working criteria by beginning a discussion of how science and religion factor into the discussion of the concept of God.
[1] A short list of those who have made this attempt includes (but is certainly not limited to): Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Plotinus, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Nicholas of Cusa, Pico della Mirandola, Calvin, Descartes, Shankara, Hegel, John Stuart Mill, Boodin, Buber, Karl Barth, Paul Weiss, St. Anselm, John Locke, Newton, Leibniz, Joseph Butler, Hume, Immanuel Kant, Josiah Royce, Whitehead, Nietzsche, Saadia ben Joseph, aka Saadi Gaon and even Maimonides who envisioned a totally transcendent God.
[2] Especially since the most prevalent image of God is male which excludes half the population, to wit: women.
[3] According to Maimonides, since there is no way to speak of God in human terms, it follows that the most fitting description of God is to say nothing. That is, as in via negative, the description of God by means of negations is the correct description. Once one understands that no word or concept is available to human beings which truly applies to God, then one can gain knowledge of God only by understanding the way in which each word fails to describe Him. According to Maimonides, one comes nearer to the apprehension of God with every increase in the negations regarding Him.
[4] As discussed in the essay “Partners,” the god of the Hebrew Bible may differ from the god we understand today. The god of the Hebrew Bible has been modified by eons of religious beliefs from one who may not know the outcome to a religious Deity who is immutable, omnipotent and omniscient. In this, and the other essays, in this collection, it is the god of the Hebrew Bible that is being discussed, not today’s view of God. The god of the Hebrew Bible does not know the outcome and does not know the future and cannot control the future, or even present events as to how they affect the future. The god of the Hebrew Bible often changes His mind based on events that He was not able to foresee. Many religions of today have transformed that god into one who does know the future and does control the future.
[5] As stated by Milton Steinberg in his book “Basic Judaism” (Harcort, Inc, San Diego, CA, 1947)
Affirming god, Judaism permits considerable latitude as to conceptions of Him. It allows the individual to decide whether He is to be envisaged as transcendent or immanent, whether as an abstract principle of being as with Maimonides and Kabbalistic mystics, or, what is more common, as supremely personal.
[6] This assumption clearly shows that the authors of the Bible were monotheists. As most other creation narratives of the time, such as Enuma Elish, and others, have the god of the authors defeating other gods to obtain prominence. A very interesting, and thorough, discussion of this concept is presented by Bill T. Arnold in “Genesis” published by Cambridge University Press of New York in 2009 in the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series.
[7] YHVH is often used as the name of God. This seems to be derived from the letters Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei, a combination of past, present and future tenses of the verb “to be”. This might be translated as “is-was-will-be-ness”. Yahweh could also be translated to mean “He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists.”
[8] See the essay on Monotheism.
[9] Did the concept of God grow out of the human concept of religion? As reported by Edward O. Wilson in his essay “Religion,” which is included in the book The Meaning of Human Existence Liveright Publishing Corp (New York, 2014) pages 147-158, recent studies in neuroscience suggest that humans actually have a religious instinct in the same manner that humans have other instincts. That is, humans have “genes for religiosity that prescribe a neural and biochemical mediation” (page 148). Thus, it may be that this religiosity instinct gave birth to a belief in a higher power, i.e., God. Belief in a god dates far back in human history, so far in fact that it might be said to have been born with humans, which is what a religious instinct would have been. Humans needed an explanation for the weather, the sun’s cycle, the cycle of seasons, lightning, earthquakes, floods, volcanos, and so forth. Their religious gene was used to explain these phenomena and this naturally led to a power high enough to control such matters: God.
[1] A short list of those who have made this attempt includes (but is certainly not limited to): Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Plotinus, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Nicholas of Cusa, Pico della Mirandola, Calvin, Descartes, Shankara, Hegel, John Stuart Mill, Boodin, Buber, Karl Barth, Paul Weiss, St. Anselm, John Locke, Newton, Leibniz, Joseph Butler, Hume, Immanuel Kant, Josiah Royce, Whitehead, Nietzsche, Saadia ben Joseph, aka Saadi Gaon and even Maimonides who envisioned a totally transcendent God.
[2] Especially since the most prevalent image of God is male which excludes half the population, to wit: women.
[3] According to Maimonides, since there is no way to speak of God in human terms, it follows that the most fitting description of God is to say nothing. That is, as in via negative, the description of God by means of negations is the correct description. Once one understands that no word or concept is available to human beings which truly applies to God, then one can gain knowledge of God only by understanding the way in which each word fails to describe Him. According to Maimonides, one comes nearer to the apprehension of God with every increase in the negations regarding Him.
[4] As discussed in the essay “Partners,” the god of the Hebrew Bible may differ from the god we understand today. The god of the Hebrew Bible has been modified by eons of religious beliefs from one who may not know the outcome to a religious Deity who is immutable, omnipotent and omniscient. In this, and the other essays, in this collection, it is the god of the Hebrew Bible that is being discussed, not today’s view of God. The god of the Hebrew Bible does not know the outcome and does not know the future and cannot control the future, or even present events as to how they affect the future. The god of the Hebrew Bible often changes His mind based on events that He was not able to foresee. Many religions of today have transformed that god into one who does know the future and does control the future.
[5] As stated by Milton Steinberg in his book “Basic Judaism” (Harcort, Inc, San Diego, CA, 1947)
Affirming god, Judaism permits considerable latitude as to conceptions of Him. It allows the individual to decide whether He is to be envisaged as transcendent or immanent, whether as an abstract principle of being as with Maimonides and Kabbalistic mystics, or, what is more common, as supremely personal.
[6] This assumption clearly shows that the authors of the Bible were monotheists. As most other creation narratives of the time, such as Enuma Elish, and others, have the god of the authors defeating other gods to obtain prominence. A very interesting, and thorough, discussion of this concept is presented by Bill T. Arnold in “Genesis” published by Cambridge University Press of New York in 2009 in the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series.
[7] YHVH is often used as the name of God. This seems to be derived from the letters Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei, a combination of past, present and future tenses of the verb “to be”. This might be translated as “is-was-will-be-ness”. Yahweh could also be translated to mean “He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists.”
[8] See the essay on Monotheism.
[9] Did the concept of God grow out of the human concept of religion? As reported by Edward O. Wilson in his essay “Religion,” which is included in the book The Meaning of Human Existence Liveright Publishing Corp (New York, 2014) pages 147-158, recent studies in neuroscience suggest that humans actually have a religious instinct in the same manner that humans have other instincts. That is, humans have “genes for religiosity that prescribe a neural and biochemical mediation” (page 148). Thus, it may be that this religiosity instinct gave birth to a belief in a higher power, i.e., God. Belief in a god dates far back in human history, so far in fact that it might be said to have been born with humans, which is what a religious instinct would have been. Humans needed an explanation for the weather, the sun’s cycle, the cycle of seasons, lightning, earthquakes, floods, volcanos, and so forth. Their religious gene was used to explain these phenomena and this naturally led to a power high enough to control such matters: God.