If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then how is it that a single word which represents such an extraordinary claim has the ability to survive for such a long time without extraordinary evidence to support it’s implications? Simple, never clearly define the word to begin with, and allow it’s hosts to adapt it’s definition to the environment. Allow it’s authors to change the definition and characteristics of the word at their will. Allow it to be redefined over and over again so that it can conveniently attempt to avoid old and new contradicting evidence. Permit people to redefine it at any time to meet their own personal needs. I present to you, the independently experienced personal “god.”
It’s evasiveness is legendary, it’s definition is elusive, it’s meaning is adaptable, it is intangible to all except to the one who provokes the thought. It is the impalpable, definition shifting, meme replicating, evasive “god” expression.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to ponder about and be skeptical of as to why it is that people who declare to have such a close relationship to god and even go so far as to claim that they “know” god, why they are so reluctant to provide even a moderately clear and coherent description of god. The obvious answer is that they really don’t have the close relationship to god that they claim they do, and of course how can they, since god is just a concept, a meme that they have acquired and modified to accommodate their own personal usage of. To give a clear definition of god would be to reveal that god is their own personally modified concept riddled with traits that they have applied to it to fulfill their own personal needs. Any knowing of “god” would be in the same sense as knowing all the traits that they themselves have assigned to their imaginary friend. Of course they would know this, they imagined it. Revealing that would expose that god is their own custom creation. It is because of this that they must avoid defining the concept of god clearly. This allows them maneuverability with their creation so that they can add and remove attributes on the fly, correct once applied characteristics that have been proven to be nonsensical, contradictory, and unnecessary at the current time to comfort their needs, and improve traits that will best meet their needs now and support and strengthen the concept’s survival for future self support.
The person hosting the god concept assigns their imaginary friend the appropriate skills, powers, and characteristics depending on what their current needs, desires, gaps, and requirements are at that specific time. So depending on the state a person is in at any moment in time, their imaginary friend will be assigned a complimenting set of fulfilling traits to support and meet that persons specific requirements for comfort at that time. Each person’s god idea is slightly to incredibly different yet often reflects a more “complete” reflection of themselves. The concept is them with all of their holes filled, intertwined with the characteristics of how they imagine a supernatural consciousness would be.
Make a skeptical or critical remark about god to one of these individuals, and they more often then not, become defensive. However, they are not defending their god concept, they are defending themselves. Because their god construct is them, to criticize and be skeptical of god is to be skeptical of them. Because they are both one and the same. God is an embodiment of them. I think the word should be discarded all together, it is overly and improperly misused, thrown about as easy as the word “love” now is, is inconsistent in substance, and does nothing but represents mans selfish attachment to comfort. Evade that.
Share
‘god’ is a human construct, a helpful personal ‘construct’ as well as ‘destructive.’ great blogging.
kebelle’s last blog post..Evangelism bluff
“mans selfish attachment to comfort.” YES. and i find that some people just need that sort of thing, in god-form or otherwise. a particular atheist i know comes to mind, who simply replaces traditional religion with other superstitions and has her life revolve around them. i think that even if you throw the concept of god out of the equation, people (at least the lazy-minded ones) will simply replace it with something else that’s likely just as ridiculous for the purpose of comfort and evasion of reality.
A something otherwise that is real would be preferred. :)
Lynne Kelly recently pointed out in a point of inquiry podcast that some people in Australia go to psychics to get their fix of comfort and escape from reality. Religion is less widespread there then in the U.S. However, the psychics are just as deceiving as religion.
wow…got to love all of the generalizations…
although i agree with many of your insights, it would be hard to define everyone who believes in god into one defined category as some of these comments suggest…
forget defensive, it’s intellectually unfair…unless you’ve surveyed every single person who professes belief in god…something similar to theists who generalize the views of atheists or agnostics.
i’m not sure if this leads to much productive conversation – i think we should all move away from straw man, ad hominem, and genetic fallicies in argumentation if we want to move towards some truth (whatever that may be).
Charles, of course! Anyone who is reasonable should be able to reason that it is understood that this doesn’t necessarily apply to absolutely every god believer. There are other motivations as well. However, I think it is highly probable that they all have been influenced in one way or another that is similar to this example.
Hello Travis,
First off, I love your background. Family man, former Marine, and a great writer. Awesome stuff.
As for your beliefs, that’s where we differ – I became “born again” only three years ago. What makes me a bit different from most Christians, however is that I wasn’t just an atheist for 23 years – I absolutely hated and persecuted Christians most of my life. Miracles and moments of epiphanies duing my time in law school, I am now one of those “Jesus Freaks.”
Anyway, back to your argument – what do you think about all those Christians who actually agree and define the same God they all worship? Assuming they agree on everything within the Bible (I know doesn’t always happen), doesn’t that mean they have a very good and uniform idea of who their God is? The Bible is, after all, our primary source of Christian teaching.
For instance, if some guy who claimed to be Christian says that Jesus actually likes to smoke weed and ruin lives, I would refer back to the Bible to point out verses explaining why that’s not consistent with Christian teaching. The Bible warns about false teachings and the like, so having an inconsistent “customizable” God doesn’t seem to be an issue when we always refer back to the Scriptures.
In the end, my main point is that Christians today worship the same God and not their make-your-own God. And yes, we can actually claim to have a personal relationship with Him without changing Him to be what we want Him to be – that’s what the Bible is for – much like how our laws are all based upon and consistent with the Constitution (or at least should be).
On a side note about your generalizations of people of faith – I hardly defend myself – I acknowledge that I am messed up, jacked up, and have a lot to work on in my life. To be like Jesus, however, is what I strive to be. I don’t think anyone has any issues with being like “Jesus” – someone who is unconditionally loving. Treat that character as an imaginary concept, but that’s what Christians are called to relate to – a person who always forgives and loves their neighbors. Shame on us if we don’t.
On a tangent, great blog layout. I love the simple yet effective framework you got going. Hope to hear from you – if you choose to respond, feel free to email me at mlouie613(at)gmail.com. Thanks!
Mewie’s last blog post..Building Relationships
Gotta love the poetic voice in this one Travis.
Absolutely love it!!!
I tried to avoid the whole “god” thing when I entered my adulthood. My religious background, growing up, was what i like to call “forced-catholicism”. As you can imagine, my religious upbringing was the very reason why i tried to avoid God.
And even when I was introduced to the protestant side of Jesus, the more “personal” side of “christianity”, I still backed away for the same reasons why I left catholicism…those damn rituals and traditions…those seemingly required activities that’ll get you to heaven and closer to God.
So began my journey “god-less”.
However, something inside of me just couldn’t ditch the “concept” altogether. So I gave God a try again. The funny things is, I explored God and the personality of said “person”, without once opening up a Bible to study what the authors of said document had to say nor paid any attention to what a preacher, teacher or other “christian” had to say, for that matter.
I was God’s Chewbacca, his Kato, his boy wonder. It was just me and him (or her according to Kevin Smith).
It wasn’t until I finally decided to crack open the Bible that I discovered that everything I came to understand about who God was to me, on my own, paralleled the descriptions of who God was in the Bible.
Maybe it was coincidence, I’m open to that.
As I’m open to being wrong about God.
But until then…
…thanks, Travis, for eliciting such stimulating thoughts. I’m off work for a month on paternity leave, so I definitely need that conversation.
“God” is a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to take responsibility for themselves (or anything, for that matter.) I agree w/you about the word “love,” as well. It’s an overly-used word that’s lost its meaning, at best.
Lana’s last blog post..LND; State’s Evidence & the Woodpecker
” No one will deny or dispute the power of the almighty….But admitting,
for the sake of a case,that something has been revealed to a certain person,and not revealed to any other person,it is revelation to that person only.When he tells it to a second person,a second to a third,a third to a fourth and so on,it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons.
it is revelation to the first person only,and HEARSAY to every other,and consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.”
Thomas Paine
I agree with and support what you say. I would like to point out one thing which will help you become a published writer sooner:
I see “it’s” and “its” used incorrectly ALL the time, in print and on television. That nearly drives me crazy!
“It’s” is a contraction of “It is.”If what you’re really saying is “it is,” “there is,” or “who is,” then use the apostrophe version. So, it’s, there’s, and who’s.
Its is the possessive form. The dog chewed its bone. (You would never say “The dog chewed it is bone,” would you?
Use its, whose, and theirs for possessives. How do you remember this? Just remember that possessive pronouns have everything–except apostrophes.
With respect,
Kathryn Diane Cleve
Truth Sets U Free
Kathryn Cleve’s last blog post..Miracles? Not so much.
To all the “Christians” on this page, please shut up about how “following Jesus” and the like. Why? Because you own a computer. Jesus specifically tells his followers to give away all their possessions. Ergo, you are a heretic and not following his teachings.
Seriously, it is impossible for a society to live by the New Testament.
Seriously, I love how people take things out of context. Ergo, SS you can’t take what Jesus said to a selfish rich boy and apply it to everyone’s life.
If Jesus lived in the 21st century, I have no doubt that he would be an amazing blogger.
Just some thoughts.
I’m sorry- I forgot the passage where Jesus said “and ignore everything I say if it doesn’t fit anymore”.
Claiming you are following Jesus and the New Testament- and than saying you are dumping out the parts you don’t like isn’t following the New Testament. It is (surprise, surprise) following yourself. Because unlike Supreme Court Justices who have the miraculous ability to read the minds of people who have been dead for hundreds of years, you have no way of knowing what to keep and what to dump except how you rationalize it.
Also, the most important point- WE ARE that selfish rich boy. For those of you who didn’t know, most of the world is so poor they would kill (and do) to even have a chance to be in our position.
About half the world is on less than 2 bucks a day. I could earn that much in 20 minutes!