God and Morality

Many believers will retort to our request for a definition, "Definition, definition, we don't need no stinkin' definition!  What makes you think God can be defined by your puny little mind?  God can't be defined."  Well, fine, if that is the position, then we're literally talking about nothing, and God is a meaningless concept.  Everything that exists must by that assertion be capable of being defined, i.e. rendered into a meaningful concept.

If you assert some nonsense word, say, Bleefnu, exists, I'd say, "Okay fine, what is bleepin' Bleefnu?"  If you then say Bleefnu isn't definable, you would be telling me Bleefnu doesn't exist and I would be shaking my head saying "Nice talking with you, bud."  Another failed conversion, as I walk away presumably destined for Bleefnubian Hades.

Option 2 then is a required option if you want to establish the existence any kind of comprehensive supernatural being (CSB).  We have two ways to go with a definition attempt, one without contradictions and one with contradictions.  Let's consider the definition without contradictions first.

The only problem with this option is the noncontradictory definition isn't a definition most people, when pressed, want for their God.

Let's start the exercise this way: I tell you God is a unicorn, defined as a one-horned pony.  This definition is noncontradictory, there's no conceptual impossibility that prohibits a one-horned pony-type creature, and we know what it would look like if we were to find one.

The problem is then whether the asserted entity in fact exists in reality.  And we can conduct a search and possibly find a unicorn someday.  In other words, there is nothing that prevents a unicorn from existing except for it actually not existing.

The analogous argument used by proponents of the definable God is that he is some kind of big buddy in the sky.  A special kind of friendly phantasm (ghost).  No one has a problem with the concept of a phantasm, it can be an energy field with distinct cloudlike properties.  Most of us have seen Ghostbusters (1989) and know what a ghost would look like if we were to see one.

So if God is a big definable ghost, then it should be a simple enough to find him and demonstrate his existence.  So far as I know, this hasn't happened.  If any of our readers has heard of the discovery, please be so kind as to contact us.

Another alternative under Option 2a is simply to use God as a giant synonym for something we all know, something important that can be described from our common human experience, e.g. positive energy, the life force, our better natures, a warm puppy dog, the zone, etc.  The value of all these representations is they can be shown to exist.

The question is why call them God?

Historically, God has meant the following:

It has been said, that if one could prove the existence of God, people who believe in God would come up with another concept for God that could not be proved.  The psychological motives are fairly obvious: people want to feel exempt from reality, especially when reality is unusually harsh or they feel they don't measure up.

Regardless of motives, the overwhelming majority of people who assert God believe in its representation as a series of contradictory attributes.  Since this is a predominantly Christian country, let's use a definition that a lot of people accept:

The first of the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, found at the back of The Book of Common Prayer (US Episcopal Church), reads "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.  And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."  From this one can construct a first minimum definition of the word God: it means "a Being which is unique, unitary, incorporeal, infinitely powerful, wise, and good, personal but without passions, and the maker and preserver of the universe."(2)

Standard Christian definition.  Right away we can see contradictions:

1. Incorporeal being—a being is generally held to require a physical body, i.e. corporeal entity; to say your deity is an incorporeal corporeal entity cancels out the assertion leaving it sadly bereft (absent) of meaning.

2. Infinitely powerful and wise—infinite power (omnipotence) presents a problem of its own, such as "if your deity is omnipotent then it should be able to build a mountain it cannot climb.  But not to be able to climb a mountain is a limit on your deity's power, so it cannot be omnipotent."

   When omnipotence and infinite wisdom (omniscience or all-knowingness) are combined in the same being, you have a similar contradiction: if the being knows something is going to happen, then it is powerless to change that; thus take your pick, omniscience or omnipotence, you can't have both.  I'll leave the reader to determine if omniscience presents its own logical impossibilities.

3. Personal but without passions—this just sounds impossible, based on any reasonable definition of what it means to be personal or passionate (emotional).  If a person has no feelings, we're probably not dealing with a person.  And why wouldn't God have any feelings?  Perhaps that has to do with item iv):

4. Omnipotent and infinitely good—theologians have dealt with this issue for centuries, it's called The Problem of Evil.  If God is all-powerful and all-good, whence evil?  Granted, God has no feelings, but one would think he'd show some care for his creatures.  The common defense to the Problem of Evil is that what we see as evil is not truly evil.  Remember that the next time a beheading occurs in Iraq.

Allright then, we're basically done with the exercise, certainly the part having to do with what can be reasonably asserted without contradiction.  Option 2a is the only option available for the rational man, namely the meaningful use of the word God for an entity that can actually exist.

This question is posed, often rhetorically by Thomist Catholics, "Doesn't everything require a cause, and as such the universe itself.  Therefore, God must be necessary as a cause of the universe."

Nathaniel Branden dealt with this argument in a column in the May 1962 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, the Intellectual Ammunition department.  His response is as follows:

Two problems exist with the proposition: 1) if the universe requires a cause, God provides it, and 2) the universe requires a cause.

As for the first problem, to posit God as the cause of the universe simply moves the question one step backward, "if God exists, then God requires a cause, which must be God, therefore, pretty soon we run into an infinite regression of Gods."  Please keep in mind here the proposed God is the Option 2b deity, which cannot exist because of the contradictions in its definition.

Note  -  A relatively recent version of the First Cause Argument is called Intelligent Design (ID), which is an attempt to scientifically legitimize theism and counter the hated Darwinian theory of the origin of species through natural selection.  ID suffers the same fallacy of the first cause argument: if reality requires a designer and the designer is real, then the designer also requires a designer.  An infinite regression results.

Second, the universe does not require a cause.  Causality is inside the universe, not vice versa.  The universe, meaning all that exists or existence, has no cause.  If you must give things a sequential flavor, then existence is its own cause.  Branden finishes with a classic Objectivist flourish:

"Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of and nothing means nothing.  If you are tempted to ask, 'What's outside the universe?' recognize that you're asking, 'What's outside existence?' and that the idea of something outside of existence is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and 'nothing' is not just another kind of 'something'—it is nothing.  Existence exists; you cannot go outside it, you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it.  Existence exists, and only existence exists: there is nowhere else to go."

Harsh realm, dude.

Pascal's Wager is a classic formulation of ethics driving belief.  It comes from the 17^th Century French mathematician Blaise Pascal who stated in essence:

"If you bet on God, and he exists, your reward is great; if you do not bet on God, and he exists, your punishment is severe, and if he does not exist you haven't lost much.  Therefore, bet on God."

The wager assumes a lot, for one thing ignoring the staggering odds against God.  As we have seen, only Option 2a is realistic, and you're betting there on a God with limits.  Even assuming the possibility of finding that being, if God has limits, the chances are slim God will be able to offer you eternal blessings.

An Objectivist writer and thinker, George H. Smith, came up with a classic counterwager to Pascal's Wager(3):

"If you bet on God and he exists, the odds are strongly against God playing fair.  Therefore, bet against God to help secure one's highest intellectual integrity and moral character, a great life free of guilt and supernatural chicanery."